Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Why are Clauses 6 and 7 in the Bill? A sensible and, dare I say, honest government who were introducing a national identity scheme would want to see how it progressed. They would introduce it, perhaps on a voluntary basis, and after a period, if it proved to be successful and popular, they might consider that it should become compulsory. My noble friend talked about a mandate; let us move on a few years. After the nightmare that the Bill will cause in the next two or three years as people are required to put their names on the register if they want a passport, a driving licence or something of that nature, and the costs and the difficulties become apparent, can you imagine the Labour Party going into the next election saying, "We want a mandate for the national identity register to become compulsory"?

As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, pointed out, it would be its "poll tax". It would not conceivably have an opportunity of winning an election if it was campaigning at the next election to bring in a compulsory register. So what do the Government do?
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1066
 
They put it in the Bill by some trick mechanism that has been invented to try to satisfy your Lordships that we will have some power to prevent it.

Lord Lea of Crondall: I thank the noble Lord for giving way as it is getting rather late, but if he wants to make party political points, will the alliance between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives on these matters last until the next general election?

Lord Thomas of Gresford: That is interesting speculation. I will hire a committee room tomorrow and invite the noble Lord to discuss that issue with me.

This will not be in the next Labour Party election manifesto. The Government are trying in this completely novel way to introduce compulsory registration at this time. There are all sorts of problems with it. Clause 6(1) states:

What does that mean? Does it mean that it will be in steps: that, first, foreign nationals who are here for longer than three months, for example, will have to take out identity cards? Will the next step be that Muslims have to do so, or some other bloc of people within the community? The Bill does not suggest that the order will apply to everyone—it could be for a class of people. There are dangers in that.

The clause then states:

There is no question of intention or even knowledge on the part of that individual. If he falls within that class and fails to register, he will be liable to a civil penalty. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out, effectively a criminal sanction is being imposed. The use of the word "civil" should not deceive anyone at all.

Orwellian these clauses most certainly are, and they are an attempt to obtain powers now that the Government would not dare ask for at the next election.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Orwellian they are not. Perhaps we may look at some of the issues that have been raised. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, moved her amendments with great lucidity. I shall attempt to respond and explain why I fundamentally disagree with her. I should also deal with some of the comments made by other noble Lords.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that ID cards will not be and cannot ever be the Labour Party's poll tax. The noble Lord may have forgotten that no one wanted the poll tax and people very much want ID cards. They are necessary and they are essential. We are being utterly practical in the way in which we put them forward. Although the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, gave a caricature, I confess I found myself thinking, "By Jove, he's got it, he's really got it". The things that the noble Lord said about why we are doing this are actually correct.
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1067
 

The principle of compulsion is clear: it has never been hidden; it is something on which we rely; and it is happening in this Bill. At Second Reading on 31 October, I made that absolutely clear when I said that,

That is why we are having it now. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, which leads this group, would quite simply remove the power to impose an obligation by secondary legislation on specified individuals to be entered in the register. I understand the reason why the noble Baroness moves it on his behalf and puts it in that way.

The Government's proposals, which command significant and consistent public support, are for a national identity card scheme which, in time, will become compulsory. That means that leaving aside any exceptional categories, it will be compulsory for every British citizen resident in the United Kingdom and all foreign nationals resident for more than three months to register, backed up by civil, financial penalties for failing to comply. That is what we are talking about—this is primary legislation—and that is why we are debating it now—not later, now.

This will clearly happen when the time is ripe. It will not happen until Parliament has had an opportunity to debate the matter, but the debate will be about the timing of compulsion and the precise categories of individuals to be included in the compulsion order—not the principle. We have an opportunity, through this piece of legislation, to decide on the principle. Therefore, now is the time for the debate on that principle. It would be wrong of the Government to try to dodge that issue by introducing a scheme now with a clear intention of it becoming compulsory but for the debate on compulsion to be put off until some point in the future. The public are entitled to know now that the Government are proposing an identity card scheme that will become compulsory. Compulsion to register makes common sense. If we are to have an identity card scheme that is universal and if we are to maximise the benefits that the identity card scheme will bring, ensuring that everyone who is legally resident here and who is economically active has an identity card will make the scheme fair to all.

Lord Crickhowell: If it is so essential to have the legislation now, why is the time not ripe? What makes the time ripe?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It is a matter of implementation. The noble Lord knows that the changes we have to bring in, not only to comply with the US provisions and the EU provisions, mean that we will have to move to the use of biometrics in our passports. That is happening now. Noble Lords know that the preparation for that is taking place and that next spring we shall start to register facial biometrics on new passports. We propose to extend that, in due
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1068
 
course, using the better and more effective additional biometrics that we have discussed over the past few months. That is going to happen incrementally.

9.45 pm

We must also implement it in a way that makes sense. During the past few months we have talked a lot about the benefits of the Passport Office. It is a proven agency, and it has done remarkably well in achieving a high standard. It has delivered on time and effectively in a way that has generated huge satisfaction among the public. We are introducing this in a sensible and planned way. That is why it is starting now but the implementation will take time.

There has been criticism of government agencies and others, during our administration and previous ones, that a scheme was not planned properly and the realities of the implementation were not taken into account. We are not doing that. We are acting in a practical and pragmatic way. That is why I say that the public are entitled to know now that the Government are proposing the ID card scheme and that it will be compulsory. Compulsion to register makes common sense if we are to have a universal scheme and to maximise the benefits that it will bring, ensuring that everyone who is legally entitled can take part. That is why it is important for us to lay all that out.

It will be far easier for us all to prove our identity. It will also make it more difficult for the criminal, the terrorist, the fraudster or anyone to use someone else's identity, or to create an entirely bogus identity, or to create multiple identities. At present, it is far too easy to create false identities and to use those to defraud banks or businesses or to carry out benefit or other frauds on the public services.

Before the move to compulsion can take place, the Government will want to be satisfied about a number of things. They will want to be satisfied that the roll-out of the initial phase of the identity card scheme has already delivered significant coverage of the population so that the impact of the compulsion order will only be for a relatively small number of people to register who have not yet obtained an identity card.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page