The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): It may be for the assistance of the Committee if I reiterate that the amendment presently under consideration is Amendment No. 117A in the name of
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1062
 
the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. The Committee will come to Amendment No. 118 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, shortly.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I was speaking to Amendment No. 118 in the rest of that group. I hope that that agrees with what the Chairman understood.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Indeed.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: While I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Anelay has just said about this aspect of what she accurately described as a skeleton Bill, I rise to support Amendment No. 117A, which relates to Clause 6(1). This provision would have done credit to the informed and perceptive imagination of George Orwell. Subsection (1) states:

"The Secretary of State may by order impose an obligation on individuals of a description specified in the order to be entered in the Register".

Lo and behold, it then goes on to say:

"An order . . . may impose an obligation on individuals required to be entered in the Register to apply"

to be so entered. Not only can the Secretary of State therefore require someone to be entered in the register who does not want to be—indeed, who wants not to be—the measure goes on, with sublime artistry, to oblige him to apply to be entered. Not even Big Brother in Nineteen Eighty-Four or the pigs thought of imposing that on poor decent old Boxer, who gradually came to find himself subjected to a status intolerably subordinate to them. At least Orwell did not fashion a scheme obliging him to ask for just that. Therefore, this amendment ought to be supported because without subsection (1), subsection (2), which is my real target, would fall.

Lord Crickhowell: After that devastating intervention, no doubt this clause will be called the "George Orwell clause", and rightly so to remind those outside the House what this Bill is all about. In an earlier debate at about this stage in the evening, a noble Lord on the other side of the Chamber reminded us of a very unfortunate piece of Conservative legislation—the poll tax. I suggested that this Bill might be the Government's poll tax Bill. Poll tax Bill or Orwell Bill, we are beginning to get to the real nasties in this Bill.

It is unfortunate that so important an amendment should be moved at this stage of the evening in a thinly attended Committee, but no doubt we shall find a better opportunity to return to a matter of great importance. I agree with my noble friend who moved the amendment that this is a key amendment in our proceedings. Surely it cannot be right to make this great step forward except by primary legislation.

The Bill has been interestingly divided into two parts. The first part is the "we all want it because it is all going to be so helpful and convenient" part. Apparently, the great British public may not realise what they are demanding, but if they fully understood it, they would be standing on the street corners saying, "We want this Bill. This is for our convenience. The Government are putting it forward with no other
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1063
 
purpose than to be helpful to all of us". But then we suddenly jump to another part of the Bill—to "the Government want it because it suits them" part. We heard a classic argument just before we broke for dinner on those lines. The time and place amendment was justified by the Minister on the ground that the Government considered that it was essential to their purpose to have a smooth-running Bill. Some of us consider that it is the job of this House to attach equal weight to guaranteeing that the citizen has a Bill that suits him and guarantees his freedoms and conveniences. So when we start to move from the "let's all have it and actually, you know, this is a lovely popular piece of legislation" stage to the point when it becomes compulsory, Parliament ought to be allowed to stop and consider very carefully.

Of course one of the justifications that the Government have advanced for the way in which they are proceeding—in other words for dividing this Bill into two parts—is: "We want to see how it develops. We want to make sure that it all works in a way that is helpful, suitable and not too expensive. We want to make sure that the biometric systems work in the way that we forecast they will work; that all the things that we say are going to go so smoothly really do go smoothly, before we go on to this much more difficult phase, in which we are going to have to persuade the British electorate that it really was a rather good idea to impose compulsion on them".

Already, we know from the debates that have taken place in this House that there have been a good many misunderstandings. On Second Reading, we had a speech from the noble Lord who is the former commissioner of the police. He defended the legislation, but in terms that made sense only if it was compulsory to carry the identity card and if you not only carried it but you had to produce it to a policeman whenever he asked for it. Otherwise, the whole defence that the noble Lord advanced made no sense at all. We are moving to a stage where something quite different is being proposed; not something helpful where we might find it useful to be able to prove who we are, but to a stage in which the Government will find it very useful because they will have much more effective control over citizens and the lives of citizens.

I am sorry to say that I am old enough to remember the war and the aftermath of the war. I remember the rejoicing and the delight when the old identity card was abolished by a Conservative government. The abolition was welcomed because people had discovered that carrying an identity card was something that they did not really like doing, although they understood perfectly well when the nation was threatened in a world war that it was necessary that they should do it. Now I suppose we will be told that we are threatened by terrorism and by crime on a scale and of a form that makes a similar sacrifice necessary, although no evidence has been produced that that is the case. There is no evidence that the card will really make a practical difference. Before we take such a step, the Government have got to justify to the nation that that is the circumstance of the time when we go to
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1064
 
compulsion; that there really is such a threat to our society that a measure of this kind is necessary and essential. They clearly are not making that case now.

If it was necessary and essential, as they say it is, they would be introducing it now and at this moment, because the threat is supposed to be with us now and at this moment. If you think you have got a measure that will prevent us being decimated by international terrorism, you do not say, "We may introduce it in two, three, four or five years' time". You say, "We will introduce it now". The Government clearly do not believe that it is necessary or they would introduce it now. Therefore, before they take this step at some unknown date in the future, they must come before Parliament and justify it to Parliament not in a constrained way, not when Parliament is in a constrained condition debating an order-making process—even if that order-making process has been extended and enlarged—but in a process under which we examine, probe and amend all serious legislation, as we are seeking to do tonight.

Therefore, I strongly support my noble friend's amendment. It is a key amendment in our proceedings and if, as seems likely at this stage of the evening, we cannot press it to a conclusion, I hope that she will choose a suitable moment later in our proceedings to ask the House to look at this issue and give it the importance that it deserves.

9.30 pm

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I wholeheartedly support the amendment, which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, moved with great lucidity. I must confess that we on these Benches are rather keeping our powder dry for Report. We have all had our go at the intended compulsion of the Bill. Although I am not looking forward to the Report stage, that will be the showdown and, in a sense, what we are saying now is preparatory to that. However, I want to make a few points.

First, I reiterate what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said—it cannot be said too often. Without the Government's estimate of the costs of establishment and cross-departmental integration of this mammoth scheme, we are setting to sea in an unseaworthy vessel. The aims, by reference to which the Bill is brought forward, cannot be tested against alternatives without knowledge of the broad costs. At this stage I do not propose to enlarge on that but it needs to be emphasised.

I was amused by the reference made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, to the piglets and George Orwell. Incidentally, let us not forget that his real surname was Blair. But if the noble and learned Lord really wants to get excited and angry, he should take Clause 2(4) to bed with him. It will keep him awake into the small hours because it makes anything in Clause 6 look very innocent. Under Clause 2(4) you can be forced on to the register not merely if you have not applied to be registered but even if you are not entitled to be registered. We need to consider that whole dimension of the Bill much more
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1065
 
on Report. Again, I utterly acquit the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, of any part in that strange conundrum.

Secondly, I want to read what the Joint Committee on Human Rights said on 17 October about compulsory registration:

"We retain the view of the previous committee that phased-in compulsory registration risks disproportionate and discriminatory interference with Article 8 rights. In our view, the imposition of compulsory registration on particular groups under clause 6 should be subject to the condition that such compulsory registration is necessary for one of the statutory purposes".

I turn to the issue of the super-affirmative procedure, for which we must give the Government some credit. So far as I am aware, it is a novelty, and if it were in another Bill I should be as pleased as punch because it gives real powers to this place. But one needs to bear in mind that statutory instruments are never brought before this House until dinner time—that is notoriously the case. It may sound feeble but the practicality of this place is sometimes more important than the theory. I have considerable anxiety about the effectiveness of even the super-affirmative procedure, given the traditions of dealing with statutory instruments. Of course, against that, and rather against my own argument, statutory instruments are not subject to the Parliament Acts. I do not know whether the Government have contemplated that but, if we were to mangle their super-affirmative instrument, they could huff and puff down the other end as much as they liked but they could not use the Parliament Acts. They could only whinge on about the mandate and the Salisbury convention, but I do not think that that applies to statutory instruments. If it does, it should not. We on these Benches did not sign up to it. All in all, we have had a good preview of a much rougher match to come at the next stage.