Identity Cards Bill |
|
Mr. Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con): I still cannot see why the commissioner cannot respond to Parliament. I take the Minister’s points on board, but I also note that under subsection (3), much of the commissioner’s remit will be dealt with by the other commissioners whom the Minister mentioned, who report directly to the Prime Minister. Given the use of national security or national interest as a barrier, I wonder what is left for the commissioner to expose. I take the point about the Serious Organised Crime Agency, but in a debate on a previous amendment, the Government was asked why that agency was not included in the matters under review. In this instance, I do not see why the commissioner could not report to Parliament, and I am not convinced by the Minister’s response on that. There are plenty of other areas that are excluded, so I am not persuaded. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough will press the point. Mr. Ellwood: May I press the Minister again to respond to my queries about the checking process that Parliament will have with regard to the commissioner and the report? Will Members of Parliament have the opportunity to review annually what is happening? I am concerned that the clause contains provisions that will prevent Members from carrying out that role. I understand that we are about eight years away from the launch of the project in its entirety. The Minister gave other examples of existing structures in which commissioners or senior representatives provide reports, but they are already in situ. This is an entirely new project using taxpayers’ money that is yet to be tested. That is all the more reason why Parliament should have an opportunity to comment on the matter. Will the Minister also elaborate on the period between now and the appointment of the commissioner? We have eight years until the project is launched. If at some point the figures were added up and we saw that we had ended up spending twice as much as the original cost of, say, £5 billion, would the Government concede that we were spending too much money on the
Mr. Garnier: I am sympathetic to the argument put forward by my hon. Friend. It would be helpful if the Government explained—if not now, they should do so at some early stage—whether there will be an annual debate on the commissioner’s report, albeit that it may come via the Secretary of State. I am also sympathetic to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace), but I am afraid that time does not permit us to press it to the extent that we would like. I look forward to hearing the matter discussed in another place, not with greater leisure—that is the wrong word—but with more time available. 4.30 pmI listened to what the Minister had to say about the amendment, and I will not seek to press it to a Division, but he should understand—I think that he probably does—that this area of public policy is unravelling minute by minute. Parliament as a whole needs to be kept abreast, and it also needs to keep control of the Executive. If the Home Secretary wants to look at and edit the commissioner’s report before he condescends to let us see it, it behoves the Government all the more vigorously to be frank, candid and open with the legislature as the legislation develops—or is rolled out, as the Minister would say. I am not usually fond of co-operating with the Government, but I will do so in this instance. In the spirit of co-operation, I will ask for the amendment to be withdrawn. I hope that the Minister accepts, however, that this issue will not go away simply because of that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Reports on the Commissioner’s functions—
Tim Farron: I am sure that the Minister and the Committee will acknowledge that my party does not accept that the national identity register is justified. We will keep making that point. I was sorry to hear that the Minister thinks that we are inconsistent, because I think that it is fair to say that my party is perhaps the only party that has been consistent on this issue since it was first raised. I have no doubt that once upon a time
The new clause would extend the commissioner’s powers in a defined way, rather than in the open-ended way that clearly so irked the Minister earlier. Let me outline its two main purposes. It would allow the commissioner to make an annual report with a wide-ranging remit that covered the carrying out of all their functions. It would also give the commissioner the power to make other reports to Parliament relating to other functions and powers in the legislation. We want the commissioner to be an independent and robust reviewer of the scheme’s operation, and we are not convinced that there is sufficient capacity for the role to operate in that way. The commissioner does not have the power—we believe that they should do—to review the adequacy of their own role or even officially to express a view. Why not allow the commissioner to have that role? The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the commissioner’s reports before Parliament, but we are concerned that the Secretary of State can edit and omit things for an unjustifiably wide range of reasons, if in their judgment those items are prejudicial to national security—[Interruption.] The Chairman: Order. The Committee is aware of my disdain for private conversations in the Room. There are lovely green Benches outside in the Corridor; anybody who wishes to have a private conversation can go out and sit on them. Tim Farron: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I am concerned that the Secretary of State can decide what is and what is not acceptable in the commissioner’s reports. Far too much licence is given; for instance, the report may edited on the basis that something in it could be prejudicial to the discharge of the functions of any public body. Of course, that would include the Home Office and the UK Passport Service. Items in the report that were critical of the services—they would be vital elements and central to the role of the commissioner—could be excluded from it. That is a matter of great concern. No doubt, the Minister will entertain us with a demonstration of incredulity at the idea that there could be any abuse of the power or that people could play fast and loose with it. However, as we said earlier, the general opposition to the Bill is based on the obvious fact that we cannot bind our successors to behave in a certain way. The Minister knows that. Not to define and extend the powers of the commissioner is naive and politically counter-productive. It simply stokes the suspicions and fears of people such as me and the increasing number of people outside
The Chairman: Order. Before we proceed, I remind the Committee that new clause 2 has not been moved. Were it to be moved, that would be done in the appropriate place at the end of our considerations, although it is being taken with this stand part debate on clause 25. Mr. McNulty: If the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is trying to be helpful, he has failed miserably. I will forgive him, because he has been in the House for only about three months. The role and function of the commissioner is a very serious matter. To treat it so lightly and tritely, in what was, in essence, a fourth-form debating society speech is simply not good enough. The hon. Gentleman talked about the wide-ranging scope to exclude things in the report. National security and the prevention or detection of crime do not constitute a wide-ranging scope. He talked about the second element of his new clause as though it were some wonderful, radical innovation that even Lloyd George would delight in were he still with us, but that element has already been included in subsection (2), which states:
The hon. Gentleman should be thoroughly ashamed of himself if he is happy three months into his parliamentary term, on the basis of some obtuse, fourth-form, third-party or minor party point of principle, to undermine in any way, shape or form the work of the security forces, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and others who seek to defend our national security and to detect those who would commit crime. The Committee should dispatch with relish new clause 2 for the fourth-form drivel that it is. Question put and agreed to. Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 27 Possession of false identity documents etc. The Chairman: We now come to amendment No. 91, with which we will discuss the following amendments: No. 92, in clause 27, page 23, line 29, at end insert
No. 225, in clause 27, page 24, line 5, after ‘false’, insert
No. 226, in clause 27, page 24, line 6, after ‘obtained’, insert
Patrick Mercer: I rise to move the amendment, but I do not have my notes to hand. Column Number: 393 Mr. Garnier: I apologise, Mr. Gale. I have left my hon. Friend in the lurch. I was busy preparing to speak to amendment No. 93; as you know, Mr. Gale, I have behind me the full resources of the vast number of Opposition civil servants. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend to deal with amendment No. 91. Mr. McNulty: I was drawn to speak not by the hon. and learned Gentleman’s attempt to introduce amendment No. 91, but by his point about the vast array of civil servants that he has, or has not, got behind him. I want to make it clear to the entire Committee that the vast army of civil servants that I have behind me had nothing to do with my previous speech. Mr. Garnier: That I believe. The Chairman: Order. On reflection, I think that I had better say nothing about that, but I am not entirely clear which hon. Member has moved amendment No. 91. Mr. Garnier: As I am on my feet, I shall deal briefly with amendment No. 91, which I shall now move. I beg to move amendment No. 91, in clause 27, page 23, line 29, at end insert
The amendment stands in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark will try to catch your eye shortly, Mr. Gale. Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe) (Lab): I shall assist the hon. Member for Newark and his researchers by intervening briefly. I note what the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said earlier, but I have served on about a dozen Bill Committees, and I know that it is customary for Opposition proposals to make sense even if they are only probing amendments. I do not know whether Opposition Members have had the chance to read subsection (2). The amendment mentions
Apparently, that is proposed despite subsection (2), which essentially relates to a person wishing to use the document to pretend to be somebody else. Do they really mean that? Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful for the indulgence of several of the Members present. The Chairman: Order. I apologise, but I was carried away with such enthusiasm in trying to work out who was moving the amendment that I forgot to put the Question. I hereby rectify that. Patrick Mercer: I seem to have put everyone in a bit of a pother with this one. It is entirely my fault and I am grateful for the assistance of all Members, including the hon. Member for Broxtowe, who no doubt seeks to assist me in respect of this group of amendments. He has a point; amendments Nos. 91 and 92 overlap unacceptably. Poor drafting on my
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may address any of the amendments in the group. The amendment moved is the one that he does not want to talk about—amendment No. 91—about which I have no power to do anything. Patrick Mercer: Thank you, Mr. Gale. In that case I will quickly make my comments address amendment No. 91; I wish that they would reflect more closely amendment No. 92. Amendment No.91 seeks to insert these words:
That is expanded further in amendment No. 92:
I think that, despite my peregrinations, it is clear that we simply want to introduce in clause 27 a further understanding of why a false identity document will not necessarily always be acquired knowingly. There could be good reasons why someone has false documentation without their necessarily realising. They could have borrowed it or—this is more likely—had it planted upon them. No doubt the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will wish to add his comments about the other amendments, but I would simply be most grateful if the Under-Secretary made it clear why the proposed words should not be included. Tim Farron: I rise simply in regard to the amendments standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland. Surely, in relation to clause 27(5)(a), intent is everything. There are many reasons why a person may have an inaccurate and potentially false document on their person without intending to mislead, to enable access or to pass themselves off as somebody else. Clearly it is possible that someone could have an out-of-date document with their maiden name on it, which would indeed be false, because they had not got round to changing it. It is important that we improve this part of the Bill by clarifying that intent is the key element. It is on that basis that I support the amendments. 4.45 pmMr. Wallace: I am not sure whether we will have a stand to debate on the clause. [Hon. Members: “Stand part”.] Indeed. If any part of the Bill is the best part and the one that should remain if everything else was stripped away, it is this. It is an important and useful contribution to fighting terrorism and false identity, and I welcome the clause. However, I must ask one clarificatory question, which may arise for legal or other reasons. Subsection (7) says that the good people of Scotland and Northern Ireland will get a term of imprisonment
Column Number: 395 whereas the good people of England and Wales will get a term “not exceeding 12 months”. Why is there a difference in sentencing? I am sure the reason can be pointed out easily. In a spirit of support, I say that this is a useful part of the Bill and I know that agencies throughout government will support it. It is a good step towards solving our problem. Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I want to be completely clear. Amendment No. 92 seems to replace amendment No. 91, although amendment No. 91 is the lead amendment. I seek your guidance as to how the Opposition get to amendment No. 92, given that amendment No. 91 is not their preferred amendment. The Chairman: For once, that is a genuine point of order and I will endeavour to respond. Amendment No. 91 is the lead amendment. It is grouped with amendments Nos. 92, 225 and 226. Once the amendments have been debated, it is open not only to the Opposition, but to any Member of the Committee, to seek to persuade the Chair to call another amendment independently. In other words, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to persuade me that he would like to move amendment No. 92 formally, that is something I will consider at the appropriate time. The amendment under discussion, which has been moved, is amendment No. 91. I hope everyone understands that. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Andy Burnham): Thank you, Mr. Gale. I think I understand that point. We will find out. First, I want to preface my main remarks by picking up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre and thanking him for his helpful contribution. He has wide-ranging experience in the field and I welcome his welcome of the new offences, which might be enacted in advance of any national identity register or ID card scheme. We will have to consider that more closely once the Bill has been passed. Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 would, in different ways, qualify the offence of possession of false identity documents with intent to use them. In considering the amendments, I urge Opposition Members to read subsections (1) and (2) of clause 27 together. By doing so, they will understand the balance of the clause. The amendments would qualify possession of an identity document belonging to another as not falling in the scope of the offence when the individual concerned had the permission of the document’s owner and/or reasonable cause for having the document. As I said, it is apparent from reading subsections (1) and (2) together that the amendments are not necessary. A person could not be guilty of the offence simply by having the identity document of another in his possession; the prosecution would have to prove that he had the requisite intention of using the document. The two elements taken together give rise to the offence under the clause. No defence is therefore
If a defence were added, it could give rise to the curious situation in which a person had a reasonable excuse for being in possession of a document, yet intended to misuse it. Obviously, we would not want that slightly confusing form of words in the Bill. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale relate to subsection (5), which creates an offence of mere possession. That offence would attract a lower penalty and is qualified by the words “without reasonable excuse”. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (5) create offences of possession without reasonable excuse of an identity document that is false or improperly obtained. Amendments Nos. 225 and 226 would qualify those offences by providing that the person must know or have reasonable grounds to believe that the document was false or improperly obtained. I hope I can convince the Opposition that there is no need for those amendments. If a person did not know that they had a false or improperly obtained document, that fact would in itself amount to a reasonable excuse in the eyes of the law. It was said in the debate that intent is everything, but if an individual did not know that the documents were false or improperly obtained, he could use the “reasonable excuse” provision in the clause as part of his case. We have had a slightly disorderly discussion on these amendments, but I hope we can bring it to a close. Without rejecting the amendments flatly, I think I can say that what the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat amendments would achieve is built into the clause. With respect to the Conservative proposals, possession must be balanced by intent in subsections (1) and (2); with respect to the measures tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, the very fact of the person’s knowledge, or lack of it, would be relevant to the test of “reasonable excuse”. In both cases, the concerns are taken care of, and I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments. The Chairman: On reflection, the Under-Secretary may wish to consider the fact that this Chairman does not permit disorderly debate. With that in mind, if the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale wishes to respond he may do so, but technically the hon. and learned Member for Harborough should make the winding-up speech because he moved the lead amendment. Mr. Garnier: I am delighted to do so, because it enables me to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newark for seconding the amendment with rather greater organisation than I could muster at the outset. As the Opposition spokesman, I must take responsibility for any infelicities that occur on the Conservative Benches, even if the Government have plenty to answer for. Let me say on my hon. Friend’s behalf that I will not press the amendment to a Division. We have had a useful little discussion, but again, this is, I dare say, one
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The Chairman: Just so that there is no confusion, does anyone wish to move amendment No. 92 formally? Hon. Members: No. Mr. Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in clause 27, page 24, line 12, leave out “ten” and insert “twelve”. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 94, in clause 27, page 24, line 16, leave out “two” and insert “four”. No. 95, in clause 27, page 24, line 18, leave out “twelve” and insert “six”. Mr. Garnier: As the Under-Secretary said, the clause will establish three separate offences, and the amendment has been tabled to probe the Government’s thinking on the penalties for committing one of those. The first two offences, under subsections (1) and (3), require the requisite intention. Of course, the Crown—the prosecution—must prove to the requisite criminal standard the necessary criminal intent in the defendant to found a conviction. The requisite intention is not present in the third category of offence. Instead, we face an offence committed by someone who has in his possession, or under his control, one of the documents or items set out in subsection 5(a) to (d) without reasonable excuse. Someone without a reasonable excuse could, if they were not careful, go to prison for two years or be subjected to a fine of an unspecified sum. If they were convicted after a summary trial before the magistrates in England and Wales, they could be liable to
In Scotland or Northern Ireland, they could be liable to
The Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but the reason for the differences between the maximum penalty on summary trial in Northern Ireland and Scotland and in England is that following the Criminal Justice Act 2003—one of many criminal justice Acts that this Government have passed during the past few years—the arrangements for the maximum penalties available to lay magistrates, justices of the peace or what used to be called stipendiary magistrates or stipes, but are now called district judges in magistrates courts, have changed and their summary jurisdiction per offence has increased to 12 months. I have spent far too long at Judicial Studies Board courses getting headaches trying to work out all the new criminal justice legislation to do with sentencing over the past year or so to want to impose this on my
First, with regard to the penalties set out in the Bill, I need to know why the Government have lighted on 10 years, which will make the punishment akin to that for severe sexual offences, offences of violence and similar matters. Nasty, violent robberies and burglaries attract if not the same penalty, then certainly something similar to it. Why have they lighted on two years under subsection (5), on the unlimited fines and so forth? We need to know. Secondly, we need to know who will have to establish that part of the case involving a reasonable excuse: is that for the defendant to prove on the balance of probabilities or for the Crown to disprove to the criminal standard? There will be occasions when mere possession of an instrument or document does not fit into the wording of the Bill. Plenty of people have a car, a gun or a knife, all of which may be used for a criminal purpose. Such instruments are innocent, but used with the wrong motive they can lead to terrible and criminal consequences. Before passing into criminal law an item such as that set out in subsection (5), we need to be careful not to catch people who might not be able to establish a reasonable excuse, but who none the less are innocent in the eyes of most people. The Government need to exercise a little care. Having said that, I look forward to what the Under-Secretary has to say about the penalty the Government think appropriate and my concerns on the burden of dealing with the question of a reasonable excuse. 5 pm |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 20 July 2005 |