Clause 6 - Power of Secretary of State to require registration
Identity Cards Bill
4:45 pm
Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)
That is extremely helpful, because it could. The Secretary of State has that discretion. We entirely understand the concerns that the penalties might impact disproportionately on those least able to pay, but the point is that the penalties are maximums, not fixed penalties. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. Lesser amounts can be paid, depending on all the circumstances, and they will be determined case by case.
The hon. and learned Member for Harborough complains about the lack of a code of practice, but clause 36, which we will consider in detail later, provides in a clear way the terms of the code and how it will operate. The fact that there is a code of practice will reassure people that they will receive a fair hearing should they be in that position. We have already added the test of reasonableness, which the Secretary of State will be required to consider. That is backed up by the code of practice.
The concerns that have been raised will not arise, and the locations of courts and the geographical spread are not relevant. The courts are a last resort. People will be given every opportunity to register under the scheme, and the intention is to encourage them to do so. It is not a means of penalising them or raising revenue. Popular consent was referred to, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said, the scheme has strong popular consent and I believe that some of the scare stories that have been put about have undermined the figures.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked, ''Why a civil scheme?'' We touched on that when we discussed the last group of amendments. We think that that is the right way to underpin the scheme. We do not want these matters to have to be dealt with by the criminal courts—there is no need for Crown Prosecution Service or police involvement—and it would not be right to give people criminal records if they failed to comply with requests to register. We do not want to weald the threat of imprisonment for failure to pay, but we do want a scheme that is simple and easy to administer and that enables people to be registered. We do not want people to breach the law of the land; we want them to register when that becomes compulsory.
It has been said that there is a higher standard of proof in the criminal court. That is correct. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is a lawyer, and perhaps that provides him with more comfort. However, we have already placed in the Bill a code of practice and a test of reasonableness. I hope he accepts that those will enable people to put their cases properly and to be heard fairly under the system.
The maximum penalties must be high enough to act as a deterrent, so that people do not choose not to register. The amendments that would reduce the maximum penalty to £50 would render the scheme vulnerable; it would not be a serious incentive to people to comply with the law and to register.
Amendment No. 41 relates to penalties for subsequent failures to register, and amendment No. 40 would remove clause 6(6) completely. The effect would be that the Secretary of State could not impose further fines for continued failure to register. That would not be in the spirit of the scheme; it would undermine the premise of the measure, which is to give a series of positive incentives to register.
It is proper for the Secretary of State to determine what a proper fee should be, and it should be able to be repeated if people persistently fail to register. As I have said before in response to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, the easiest way to avoid all that is to obey the law of the land. That will be a matter for the Government of the day, when they consider whether to make the scheme compulsory. If the power is invoked and used, it will be fair for everybody to be required to register. It will be the will of the House that people should do so, and unless they have reasonable reasons, they will be expected to do so. I think I have touched on most points that hon. Members raised.
Amendment No. 139 would remove clause 6 from the Bill altogether, which would in effect take away the compulsion to register. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland knows, the Government's intention is that the scheme will be fully compulsory. [Interruption.] Excuse me, Mr. Gale. I would like to withdraw the comment about the amendment. I thought the hon. Gentleman had tabled an amendment to remove the clause altogether.
Amendment No. 147 would create a criminal offence—the summary offence of failing to comply with any requirement of clause 6. No penalty is mentioned, but even if it were a moderate one, a person who failed to comply on more than one occasion would end up with a criminal record. As I have tried to explain, it is not our intention to penalise in that way people who persistently fail to register. The aim of the regime is to encourage people to see that it is in their financial interests and in their own best interests to comply and to register with the scheme. We do not think it appropriate or sensible to give people a criminal record.
I hope that, with those remarks, I have answered some concerns set out by Opposition Members. It is not our intention to penalise or clobber people with unreasonable fines. Our intention is purely for people to be registered with the scheme as soon as is practically possible once the House has passed a compulsory scheme. In that spirit, I hope Opposition Members will not press their amendments.