Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 February 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Identity Cards Bill.


Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 15:"Page 30, line 41, at end insert—" ““(4A)   Before a draft code under this section is laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must take such steps as he thinks fit— (a)   for securing that members of the public in the United Kingdom are informed about the proposed code; and (b)   for consulting them about it.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 continues the improvement to Clause 34 which was started by the previous amendment. Clause 34, which was Clause 36 in the Bill before it came here, is a very important clause. I think that the whole House has always recognised that, as it provides for a code of practice regarding the whole regime for the imposition and quantification of penalties. Unfortunately, penalties will be germane to this legislation. They are considerable penalties—£1,000 or £2,500—and, as the Government have indicated, a normal first-time penalty will be a quarter of the maximum. So, even at a maximum of £1,000, we are talking of a £250 fine for—for example—failing to notify a change of address. To be fair to the Government, they have gone to lengths to assure the House that this provision will not be like some traffic cameras, which are an alternative way of generating revenue, and that the Government will be extremely long-suffering and pragmatic and only levy penalties where it really is a case of incorrigibility—let us put it that way. I am perfectly ready to accept that, provided two things happen. The first is that the code reflects that sentiment. I think that the draft code broadly reflects that approach—for example, it gives substantial significance to an aspect of the whole regime, which is not referred to in the relevant clauses, in that it gives a warning to the citizen before he or she is penalised. That is to say, it does not simply rely, as you might think from the Bill, on the citizen’s right of appeal once a penalty has been awarded at a distance and without having heard what the citizen has to say. So, that is in the code. The point of the amendment is to ensure that there is consultation. On Amendment No. 14 the Minister made the point that there will be a continuous consultation, on this part of the Bill in particular. I want to see that provision plumb on the statute. It is already on the statute regarding the matters dealt with in Clause 15, which deals with checks on the register and information from the register. I borrowed the language from the consultation subsection in Clause 15 for the amendment. I hope that for all those reasons the Government will agree with me, and with the noble Baroness whose name is attached to this amendment, that this provision is better in the Bill. On that basis, I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c453-4 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Data protection Codes of practice Crime prevention Applications Costs Certification Fraud Fees and charges ICT Identity cards Documents European Union Fines Entry clearances National identity register Proof of identity Passports Registration Criminal Records Bureau Office of the Identity Commissioner
Legislation
Identity Cards Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk