Identity Cards Bill

This is a fairly simple point. The penalty is imposed by the Crown. I regard it—and it is generally regarded—as a fundamental principle that a penalty imposed by the Crown should not be incurred unless it is incurred intentionally. Of course there are rare examples of strict liability but the context of this legislation does not conceivably warrant that. I think I know—at least in part—what the noble Baroness will say by way of reply. She will refer us to ““Objection to penalty”” in Clause 34, which states:"““A person to whom a notice under section 33 has been given may give notice to the Secretary of State that he objects to the penalty on one or more of the following grounds””." The second ground is:"““that the circumstances of the contravention in respect of which he is liable make the imposition of a penalty unreasonable””." It would be unreasonable if he did not intend to meet the conditions upon which this legislation imposes the liability. If the Government are prepared to accept that, why on earth are they not prepared to accept these amendments which require intention to be proved before liability for what is a criminal offence is incurred? It is really an open and shut case. I very much hope that the Minister, with her customary fairness, will see this. I do not expect a concession tonight but I very much hope that she will take it away and come back with something next time.