Clause 15 - Power to make public services conditional on identity checks
Identity Cards Bill
12:00 pm
Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 56, in clause 15, page 14, line 9, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
Clause 15(1) states:
“Regulations may make provision allowing or requiring a person who provides a public service to make it a condition of providing the service to an individual that the individual produces—
(a)an ID card”.
That is fine, but paragraphs (b) and (c) add:
(b)other evidence of registrable facts about himself; or
(c)both.”
The clause is difficult to understand. I see how important it is, but it is incongruous and probably rather heavy handed.
There are several problems. First and foremost, which public services does the clause cover? Should I assume from the way in which the Government have framed the clause that I will need my ID card to obtain emergency treatment? I cannot imagine that being the case, but if it were, the Government would already have insisted that carrying the ID card is mandatory. I am content to believe the Minister when he says that that will not happen and that the Government do not intend to make that happen.
Dwelling for a moment on medical services, I can assume only that an ID card would need to be produced for such things as routine, extended and chronic medical care and perhaps dentistry. What else? I hesitate to use the phrase “entitlement card”, but will the Minister provide us with further evidence regarding which services the Government will make available to us only on the production of an ID card?
If my assumption is correct, I am prepared—sort of—to accept the logic of such a provision, despite my dislike and contempt for the whole idea, but I cannot understand why, if an ID card has been demanded so that a service can be provided, we should have to produce an ID card, other evidence of registrable facts about ourselves, or both. Is the Minister implying that I could go to the doctor’s for treatment for, say, a bad back and the doctor could say, “Okay, nice to see you and your bad back again. Let’s have a look at your card,” and if I produced it but the doctor said that it was not good enough, he could ask for more registrable facts to prove that I am the person who came last week? I am glad that I have made the Under-Secretary smile, but I simply do not understand why that is necessary.
Despite my general reservations, I am content that there might be some reason for requiring us to produce the card if we want public services, but what on earth do paragraphs (b) and (c) mean? To my mind, the Government would be well advised to strike them from the Bill. If we are to have the card, the simple statement that the individual must produce it is quite enough. Paragraphs (b) and (c) are needless and otiose and should be struck from the Bill.