---

Identity Cards Bill

I entirely support everything that has been said, and I will not repeat it. One has to think of the circumstances in which this civil penalty will arise. Clause 37 deals with fees. The Secretary of State will impose fees,"““of such amounts as he thinks fit””" for not just an entry upon the register but a modification of an entry, for the issue of ID cards, for applications for the provision of information contained in entries in the register, and so on. How does he calculate the level of the fees? By having regard to the expenses that will have been incurred in respect of that application,"““expenses that will be or have been incurred by him in respect of such other things mentioned in the subsection as he thinks fit””" and,"““other expenses that will be or have been incurred by him in connection with any provision made by or under this Act””." In other words, the fees will be related to the cost of the whole scheme. That the Government have estimated only £30 for making an application to go on the register indicates that very little thought has so far been given to the implications of Clause 37. We have seen other estimates, varying from £90 to the hundreds, as the likely fees. Not everybody can pay those fees. Large numbers of people who will be caught by these provisions, particularly when they become compulsory, will be students, elderly people or retired people, for whom fees of that nature will be excessive. Yet if they fail to register because they do not have the money or because they do not, for one reason or another, realise that they have to register, then, under these provisions, they become liable to what is effectively a criminal offence. You can imagine the effect upon elderly people who have led blameless lives who suddenly discover that for something they know little about or which they cannot afford they are effectively criminalised. Intention is an essential ingredient of any offence that will be brought under this legislation. I think that the reason the word ““intention”” is not already contained in the provisions is that these penalties are produced not by a human being but by a machine. That is the problem. It is the same with parking regulations and the congestion charge. No human mind is ever put to the circumstances in which there is a failure to comply with statutory provisions. Seeing that there will be 60 million people to be registered, it will be done by machine. Then it is left to the individual to make such representations as he can to the county court at a later stage. I respectfully suggest that that is entirely the wrong way round. Where there is a criminal offence, strict liability ought not to be imposed and ““intentionally”” as suggested by the amendments is essential.