|
Mr. Allan: I have added my name and those of my hon. Friends to amendments Nos. 130 and 131 that were inspired by the organisation Liberty, which raised the issue of the meaning of the word ''civil''. We have engaged in what is technically known as a reverse Dutch auction when we bid down the Conservatives on the level of fee. We bid below them on amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84 to draw attention to the level of fines and the way in which they will be set.
The organisation Justice assisted us with amendment No. 165, which we tabled to receive clarity about the process. As I have listened to the debate, I have become more worried, not less worried, about how fines under the clause will be imposed. We are talking about people who do not have a passport. It is important to remember that to most people, certainly in the Room, and throughout the country, the provision will not be relevant because they would have provided all the information to receive a passport. The sanction would have been no passport and they will have provided the information to avoid that sanction.
The clause will be invoked at a point at which the Government deem the process to have gone as far as they wish it to go. Indeed, we must bear in mind that the clause could be invoked much sooner. It could be invoked at any time. The Government said that they will wait for the passport process to occur but, if they bring it forward under the super-affirmative procedure in clause 7, they can invoke the powers much earlier. For example, they could change their mind next year. We could have a different Government with a different policy, but under the Bill, they could say that they want to require everyone to register compulsorily.
In normal circumstances, however, we shall be dealing with the rump of people who have not applied for passports. It is important to understand what will happen if those people fail to come forward, the precise nature of the process that will take place and the sort of fines that may be imposed. The clause seems to have been drafted to avoid ID card martyrs. Lessons have been learnt from the poll tax, when people refused to pay it. They went through the court process and used it as a platform to challenge politically what the Government had done. As I read the clause, I suspect that the Government are, in a defensive way, seeking to avoid such a position, and thus have come up with a scheme that is confused.
Column Number: 187
Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 try to tease out what is meant by ''civil''. Let us imagine a letter that states, ''Dear Sir, Would you mind possibly paying a £1,000 fine because you seem to have forgotten to register? P.S. If you don't deliver the money within 28 days, some more unpleasantness will follow.'' What is the meaning of ''civil''? I assume that, if a person does not pay the sum within a prescribed period, he will be taken to court and the ultimate consequence might be a custodial sentence. The hon. Member for Woking was right to refer to article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Can we define a compulsory requirement under the state that carries a sanction that, if not complied with, would presumably carry subsequent sanctions that must involve a custodial sentence? Can we define a process in that way and say that it is ''civil'' and can be distinguished from the criminal law?
What sort of record will be kept of someone who offends under the clause is important, as is the relationship between that and the usual proceedings in respect of a criminal record for other offences that a person might commit. Will the Minister clarify that? He said that the level of fine and the way in which it will be imposed will be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. That rings very big alarm bells. The whole thrust of human rights law is about taking matters out of the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State and putting them into the courts. That is relevant to amendment No. 165, because we are trying to establish the role of the courts in such a process. Will there be appeal procedures? Will those procedures go before the courts in the usual way? We have had a long-running debate about life sentences, in which it was made clear that, under the European convention on human rights, the Secretary of State's interference in the setting of tariffs was not appropriate.
As I say, the thrust of the law is that politicians should be as far outside of the judicial process as possible, and I entirely agree with that. I understand from the Minister's comments that the process would mean that the Secretary of State, or his officers, would effectively be able to decide on the level of fine, manage the process and, presumably, deal with any appeals against it or objections to it. That would be very troubling indeed. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that issue.
4.30 pm
If we are to move down the route of compulsory identity cards—the Liberal Democrat position on that is absolutely clear—the citizens of this country have the right to understand at this stage its full implications. I suspect that the clause will lead to a not-trivial number of cases in the future. A significant number of citizens will be affected, either because they choose not to have an ID card and are explicitly becoming ID card martyrs, or because they fail to get one for another, less direct or explicit, reason. It seems that we are to take such citizens through a process in which the Secretary of State can issue them with a penalty notice. As the hon. Member for Woking
Column Number: 188
pointed out, people may fail to respond properly to such a notice because they do not have the means and cannot afford to pay. They may not be doing that deliberately or maliciously.
We need a much clearer understanding of the full process and I feel very uncomfortable about leaving the clause, which would give that huge range of discretion, as it is worded. I make no personal swipe against any particular Secretary of State, but the general thrust of human rights legislation is that penalties imposed on citizens must have a sound basis in law. To satisfy our article 6 requirements, such matters should be in the hands of the courts, rather than political officials of the state. The clause seems entirely contrary to that spirit.
I hope that the Minister can give more detail on the way in which the system will work. However, I suspect that this will be another occasion on which he will not be able to satisfy us about the rightness of the solution that he sets out.
Mr. Curry: I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said. I am grateful to the Minister for referring us to the later clause, because how that works will be crucial.
I am co-chairman of the all-party group on homelessness and housing need. When we were in government, I managed the rough sleepers initiative for four years as Minister with responsibility for housing. It was very successful, supported by all parties and never the subject of political contention. However, what strikes me is that there is a significant group of people in society—I hesitate to use the word ''underclass''—who are simply not competent, and the major task is to teach them some sort of competence.
I remember vividly that John Bird, who runs The Big Issue, said that a home is the last thing that such people need because so many things have got to come before they have the competence to live in their own home. I also remember a 16 or 17-year-old going into a Salvation Army hostel in the east of London saying to me, ''The most frightening thing that ever happened to me was being given the keys to my own little maisonette, because I was in charge and had to take responsibility.''
Many people who sleep rough—many of whom have bounced down from the armed forces, funnily enough—suffer from drugs, drink, mental illness and combinations of all three. If they are to be able to conform with the law, there will, with the best will in the world, have to be a mentoring system through which people can act on their behalf. They are unlikely ever to want a passport, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said. Nothing could be more absurd than repeated appearances in court by people utterly incapable of meeting the fines levied on them and probably incapable of fulfilling the law without somebody mentoring them closely.
I represent a northern English constituency on the edges of Bradford and Leeds. Many women among many ethnic minority populations are often not expected to take any role outside the home, and in many cases they have very limited competence in
Column Number: 189
English. We must make sure that they do not inadvertently find themselves to be unintended victims of the legislation because of cultural difficulties.
I should be grateful if the Minister would bear the points I have made in mind when he thinks of how the measures will operate in practice. I hope he will give reassurances that he will do so. He keeps repeating that this is the only primary legislation, which gives us the opportunity to debate the subject.
Mr. Browne: In terms of penalties it is appropriate to look also at clauses 33 to 37 to see the provisions that relate to civil penalties that are in the Bill. With respect to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam—and I do have respect for him—it is not fair to say that there is nothing in the Bill about that when those clauses exist. I will, appropriately, not be drawn into debating them prematurely. We will come to them in due course and there will be an opportunity to discuss them in some detail. It would be inappropriate for me to do that now, despite the fact that if I were to respond to all the questions that have been asked of me, that is what I would do.
It is appropriate to set out the context to the clause, because we are getting as near to a clause stand part debate as we can in terms of these amendments. The Government's proposals, which command significant and consistent public support, are for a national ID card scheme. In time it will become compulsory, in the sense that every British citizen resident in the UK and all foreign nationals resident for more than 3 months will be required to register, if they have not already done so.
That will not happen—and the provisions that are considering today will not become relevant—until the time is right; it will not happen until Parliament has the opportunity to debate it. That debate cannot begin until the Government are satisfied that the roll-out has already delivered significant coverage of the population, that there is clear public acceptance of the card, that no vulnerable groups would be disadvantaged, that the scheme has made a contribution to meeting its aims, and that the technology is working and trusted.
All of the conditions that precede being able to move forward will allow Parliament, in considering the report and any order that might come from it—even if the conclusion of the report were amended—to examine all of those issues and the implications. I would not expect Parliament to make its decision unless it was satisfied in respect of all the things to which I referred.
It is right and appropriate that the Government should set out a scheme that proceeds in that way, so that just the sorts of concerns, which are proper ones, that hon. Members bring to this debate are considered. We are talking about a vehicle and a mechanism for considering them in some detail at the appropriate time.
Amendment Nos. 34, 35 and 36 would reduce the maximum amount of the penalties that may be imposed. There would be a reduction from £2,500 to £1,000 for a contravention of one of the requirements set out in clause 6(2) or 6(3) relating to registration.
Column Number: 190
There would be a reduction from £1,000 to £500 for a contravention of a requirement set out in clause 5(5) relating to supplying further information. There would also be a reduction from £2,500 to £1,000 for each contravention of a notice requiring a person to register, subsequent to a contravention by them of an initial requirement to register. Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84 would reduce all those penalties to £50. I fear that that is not an amount that would deter many people from doing anything or from not doing anything.
I appreciate that there may be concerns that the penalties would impact disproportionately on those least able to pay, and they probably would if they were imposed at their maximum levels. However, the sums I was referring to are the maximum penalties.
The hon. Member for Woking points out that in magistrates courts when magistrates consider the individual circumstances of offenders it is highly unlikely that they will impose the maximum penalty. I have no idea what the answer to his question is, but I know from my experience in the equivalent courts in Scotland that it is highly unlikely that magistrates there would impose the maximum level of penalties—or indeed, that sheriffs, who have a greater jurisdiction, would.
| 
