Clause 9 - Renewal of ID cards for those compulsorily registered
Identity Cards Bill
9:45 pm
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not find it necessary to move the amendment. To some extent, we discussed the penalties in an earlier debate, but it is important that we should briefly discuss whether clause 9 should be part of the Bill. I place in parentheses my usual complaint about the enabling nature of the Bill, which produces all these unseen powers. That is worth saying on every occasion so that nobody is in any doubt about the point. The aspect of the clause that I want to touch on relates to subsections (3), (4) and (5).
Subsection (3) says that
''Where an individual applies for an ID card in pursuance of this section, the Secretary of State may require him to do such one or more of the things specified in subsection (4) as the Secretary of State thinks fit for the purpose of—
(a) verifying information provided for the purposes of the application; or
(b) otherwise ensuring that there is a complete, up-to-date and accurate entry about that individual in the Register.''
So far, almost so good, even though the subsection provides the Secretary of State with unmeasured powers.
Under subsection (4), the Secretary of State can require the individual
''(a) to attend at a specified place and time''.
We dealt with the point about distance and difficult access in an earlier debate. The Secretary of State can also require the individual
''(b) to allow his fingerprints, and other biometric information about himself, to be taken and recorded''.
To some extent, we touched on that point, although we may return to it. The Secretary of State can also require the individual
''(c) to allow himself to be photographed''.
That does not necessarily mean that the individual must be photographed by an agent of the state. When one gets a passport, one can go to a public photograph booth, where not only the property and the paper but the copyright and the image belong to the individual and not to the Government. However, it may be implied as part of the contract of getting a passport that one passes ownership of the paper and copyright of the photograph to Her Majesty for the purpose of securing a passport and all that goes with it.
The subsection that particularly concerns me is (4)(d), which says that the individual is
''otherwise to provide such information as may be required by the Secretary of State.''
That could mean absolutely anything. Clearly there is a scheme behind it. No doubt, in due course some regulation will be put before us for consideration. As yet, we do not know what on earth subsection (4)(d) could comprise.
The matter is all the worse because people who contravene that requirement could
''be liable to a civil penalty not exceeding £1,000.''
We have had an argument about civil and criminal penalties. The points still stand. How can it be right for a Government to legislate that a Secretary of State can do anything and that if people do not comply they will be fined £1,000? I do not like that sort of society. I do not like this sort of legislation.
It is not good enough for the Government to say, ''We will sort the matter out in due course and everything will be fine.'' It will not be. Before they force clause 9 on Parliament and on the people of this country, the Government should condescend to be more specific than they have been in the Bill.