---

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, this amendment is essential. During the early stages of seeing whether the ID card scheme works, we will see examples of petty officialdom acting ultra vires and trying to control movements when they should not do so. Perhaps it will be irritating to have your position vis-à-vis parking fines and other minor infringements checked before you leave the country to go on holiday. That is perfectly feasible and probably sensible, but what if an appeal is pending and it has not been registered properly? What if one evening you are mugged or your pocket is picked and your ID card is lost, but you have to travel shortly afterwards; how will you get another ID card to do so? Those noble Lords who have tried to use their House of Lords ID card to get on an aeroplane to Scotland will know that it is not a sufficient proof of identity.

Lots of issues may arise. In the light of our experience, we may want to return to primary legislation to introduce stronger safeguards for the ordinary citizen. To trust an executive department of state to introduce those protections is foolhardy. History has taught us that that is unwise.

We should also remember that all the assurances given to us by the noble Baroness on the Front Bench, while completely honest at the moment, must be taken in the light that no Parliament can bind its successor. After the next general election, Ministers may well change their minds entirely. Indeed, on certain other issues we have seen the same Minister come back to this House with completely different opinions after a general election. None of this is set in stone and therefore it must be set out in primary legislation. Indeed, we may well find by then that local authority entitlement cards and others of that nature are quite sufficient for our purposes, and that we do not need to waste our money. Perhaps we will want to introduce legislation to ensure that they are better used. So many different things could come out of the trial period we are about to enter that merely to move on to the next stage by a super-affirmative order-making procedure is foolish and foolhardy. We must go back to primary legislation in order to move further down this track.

5.15 pm

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I support the noble Lord's amendment. The Government must be given some credit for the super-affirmative procedure. It is obviously a great deal stronger than normal
 
23 Jan 2006 : Column 987
 
procedure for a statutory instrument. But I am persuaded that the issues behind this important Bill, both of principle and of practicality, such as the technology, the corruptibility and the cost, all classically make the decision to go to compulsion one that should be taken by primary legislation. I am sure some noble Lords think that is a way of preventing this ever happening, but I do not see it that way.

There has been a flood of Home Office legislation through this House. At no time in recent years have there not been at least two Home Office Bills going through this place. If at some future time a government are persuaded that it is working and it is not corruptible, it seems relatively straightforward to have two or three sections in a Bill that are compatible with the proposal for compulsion, and we can deal with it then. The other point is that, even with the super-affirmative procedure, you are apt to come on after dinner, and, to be honest, that aborts the prospect of a full House giving full consideration to the matter.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am still unclear about the Government's position on this. Are they saying that if both Houses were not to agree to an order, it would fall and there would have to be primary legislation, or that the normal convention would apply, and it would be a constitutional outrage if we were actually to vote against an order? I suspect it is the latter, and, if so, there is no real safeguard at all in the super-affirmative procedure.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is pointing his gun at me. I am a mere opposition spokesman—not even a spokesman, just a Back-Bencher. As I understood the Minister, she made it quite clear that the latter scenario is not relevant. If both Houses reject on a super-affirmative basis, that's it. Indeed, it would be a nonsense to call it "super" anything if that was not "it", so I am assuming that it is. I am still saying that primary legislation is appropriate for the reasons mentioned, and therefore I support the amendment.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it surely must be right, when you are taking the step from voluntarism to compulsion, that there should be primary legislation. Everyone who has spoken so far agrees that should be so. After all, whether or not it is a "super" procedure, in the House of Commons they will probably have three hours at most to discuss the matter. When it comes here we may discuss it for even longer, but the fact is that it will go through on one single occasion. A decision as great as converting the system from voluntary to compulsory will go through both Houses in less than a day. That simply cannot be right. I wonder why the Government will not accept this amendment. It would be in their own interests to do so. It would make them appear less authoritarian and more concerned with individual freedom and the rights of not only this House, but of the House of Commons as well.

The step to compulsion is, let me emphasise, huge. It converts the decision whether to have an identity card from the individual to the Government. That is a huge
 
23 Jan 2006 : Column 988
 
step. The Government do not seem to understand what they are doing. The amendment would be good from the Government's point of view because they would convince people that they do believe in individual freedom and that they do believe in proper parliamentary process before large steps are taken. That would be good for the Government; it would help them with the electorate.

In addition, if the Government accepted the amendment, they would gain time. We will be into the next election and perhaps electing a new government by the time this scheme goes into operation. The Government and the Labour Party would have the opportunity to gain the authority of the people for a compulsory scheme because they could put it in their manifesto. As we know, the Government were very concerned—except in certain cases—to adhere to the manifesto commitment. They could seek the authority of the people for the measure if they put it in a manifesto. That seems a very good argument for the Government to accept this amendment.

There is another point. The Labour Party—new Labour—may very well want to change its attitude. We should make no mistake about the fact that many people in the Labour Party are very concerned about this legislation and its implications for individual freedom. It is perfectly possible that the Labour Party itself would wish to go back to its roots and defend individual freedom by changing the policy of compulsory identity cards and a compulsory register. So from the point of view of the Labour Party, accepting this amendment would give it the opportunity to further discuss the implications of this legislation. But, above all, such a change deserves proper discussion and proper scrutiny in both Houses before it is made compulsory for the British people. Whether people are in favour of or against the scheme, I believe that virtually everyone, except perhaps the Government and some of their supporters, believes that it should not be made compulsory until there has been a big discussion not only in this House and in the House of Commons but publicly as well.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I suggest that the measure requires rather more than discussion; it requires the consent of the people achieved by reason of a manifesto which sets out that it is to be compulsory. For example, under Clauses 4 and 5, an individual is required compulsorily to attend at a specified place and time to give information about himself and to be registered. That to me has a biblical ring about it. It is like the decree of Caesar Augustus which required Joseph and Mary to take their family from Nazareth to Bethlehem. It could have all sorts of consequences. We might get three wealthy illegal immigrants bringing gifts. Who knows where this will end? But the serious point is that the consent of the people to compulsion must be obtained before this register and the identity card are made compulsory.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, enthusiasm for this amendment must be affected by the importance placed on the liberty of the individual and
 
23 Jan 2006 : Column 989
 
the reduction of that liberty implied by the scheme's becoming compulsory. The Joint Committee on the Constitution clearly thought not only that the relationship of the citizen to the Government was greatly altered by a compulsory scheme, but that the moment that limitation took place was the point at which the scheme became compulsory. It recommended what this amendment would provide: that there should be primary legislation before the change is made.

That has been very fully discussed. We have not discussed so much the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that Parliament will need, after the many years of the so-called voluntary scheme, to change various arrangements in the present Bill. Some of it will not work very well; some of it will need to be tweaked in various ways and that will be the opportunity. None of that could happen with a super-affirmative resolution. All that could happen would be a debate and acceptance or rejection. There will be a debate, yes, and then a pause, because it is a super-affirmative resolution, before implementation. Primary legislation will give us a proper opportunity to make any necessary changes. I had not given proper thought to that important point. I am sure that this amendment is of enormous importance and I hope we will accept it.

---