Clause 6 - Power of Secretary of State to require registration
Identity Cards Bill
4:00 pm
Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 36, in clause 6, page 5, line 34, at end insert ''without reasonable excuse''.
I hope that the purpose of the amendment is self-evident. Subsection (4) states:
''An individual who—
(a) contravenes an obligation imposed on him by provision made under subsections (2) and (3), or
(b) contravenes a requirement imposed on him under section 5(4) in connection with an application made in pursuance of such an obligation''.
The amendment simply proposes that after the reference to the ''individual who'' we insert the phrase ''without reasonable excuse''.
There will be people who contravene such obligations and requirements imposed on them, but who have a reasonable excuse for doing so. For instance, how does someone who is terminally ill register? Will they be available? Do they have a reasonable excuse to contravene a requirement or obligation? Yes, I suspect that they do. What about people who are abroad at the time—perhaps not on holiday, but working abroad for long periods, or working offshore? I am also thinking of soldiers, sailors and aircraftmen on operational tours of duty, particularly Territorials who are often called up at short notice and, as we have seen over the past two or three years, who often have very little time in which to put their personal matters in order before being required to join the colours? There will be situations in which they clearly contravene an obligation or a requirement, but I suggest that they might have a reasonable excuse.
What about those who are not of sound mind? What about those who are being looked after by others because they cannot look after themselves? What about those who need to have everything done for them? When the notice of contravention of the obligation or requirement arrives for such people, will they know what to do? How will that be served upon them? Do such people not have reasonable excuse? If they do not, we should take note of the bottom of subsection (4), which states that they
''shall be liable to a civil penalty not exceeding £2,500.''
I am sure that a Territorial called up to serve in Iraq would be delighted to pay £2,500 for not having a reasonable excuse for being absent—and someone who is not in full possession of their faculties might be equally delighted. What about those who cannot pay? I wonder how many of the people who commit these crimes will be in a position to pay this sum.
Similarly, perhaps the Minister will give some thought to approaching the problem from the other end of the spectrum. I mentioned refuseniks earlier, but what about the fabulously rich refusenik—the drug dealer who deals in, and lives on, ready money? He or she has no desire to become involved in providing information to the national register or, heaven forfend, to carry an identity card.
If one can regularly afford £2,500, how often will one be fined that sum? How many times can someone be done for this particular offence? I appreciate that that is approaching the problem from a slightly different angle, but I am interested to hear how the Minister intends to deal with those who seem to have an excuse and those who want to make an excuse.
Surely a test of reasonableness should be imposed to ensure that we have a list, or something else against which one can test the legislation, that determines whether an excuse is reasonable and that might give someone extra time to pay this sum, or that determines that someone will not be fined in certain circumstances. I appreciate that such a list may not be exhaustive—it would be an incredibly clever and lucky person who could come up with such a list—but that simple amendment would help to make things clearer and, by definition, make the measure much more reasonable.