Clause 30 - Providing false information
Identity Cards Bill
6:00 pm
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 104, in clause 30, page 26, line 25, leave out from ‘false’ to end of line 26.
We can see from the clause that a person is guilty of an offence if he provides information that he knows or believes to be false, or if he is reckless as to whether it is false,
“(a)for the purpose of securing the making or modification of an entry in the Register;
(b)in confirming ... the contents of an entry in the Register; or
(c)for the purpose of obtaining for himself or another the issue or modification of an ID card.”
We come again to my favourite word. If the Minister likes the expression “rolling out”, I enjoy the expressions “modification” and “modified”. It is interesting that we are discussing the modification of an entry in the register, which I accept is a proper use of the word within the context of an Act of Parliament. The Government sought to persuade us last week that when they use the word “modify” in respect of a report or statutory instrument, they mean “amend”, and that we were being provided in the earlier clauses with an opportunity to allow Parliament to amend secondary legislation. I do not know about that, bearing in mind how they use “modification” throughout the subsequent parts of the Bill, including clause 30.
However, I want to ask the Minister by means of amendment No. 104 whether I am right in thinking that the criminal law treats the reckless disregard of truth or falsity in exactly the same way that it treats the known falsity. If one knows that they are telling a lie, they will be treated in the same way as they would if they could not care less whether they were telling a lie. Is it therefore necessary to add
“or ... is reckless as to whether or not it is false”?
The new policy might be one of being super-abundantly clear in legislation that creates offences and that, for example, if information were laid against an individual who had done such a thing before magistrates, or an indictment were to be drawn against an individual before the Crown court, the Crown might wish to set out those two levels of knowledge as alternatives. It is important to be clear about the Government’s intentions before we allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.