Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I very much agree with the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about the need to scrutinise the statutory instruments that this Bill will spawn. However, it should be remembered that the Government contend that we are not entitled constitutionally to amend, let alone reverse, statutory instruments. There is much to be said by way of criticism of this Bill for its provisions in that regard. I had intended to begin and will go on to say something that I am afraid some of your Lordships may regard as vulgar. If, after some catastrophic further outrage, which heaven forfend, it were to be shown that a reliable scheme for an identity card could have helped the police prevent the outrage, the blow to public confidence would surely be very heavy. Surely, in those awful circumstances, the maintenance of public confidence would be very important indeed. Many of the highly principled, eloquently delivered and totally sincere criticisms expressed today about the scheme would not in those circumstances attract much sympathy; nor would they be much solace. How much weight should your Lordships attach to that consideration? This has been a deeply troubling debate to me, for the best of reasons. It has got to the heart of some difficult questions. Not surprisingly, it has concentrated on a recognition of the deeply demanding conflict with which the purpose of this Bill confronts us: the conflict between our opposing duties as legislators: on the one hand, our duty to help the Government secure the safety of the realm, and on the other the duty to stand in the trench and defend those freedoms and safeguards against undue restraint by the executive, for which our predecessors have fought and not infrequently died. That conflict is not new. In 1939, for example, we faced it when we brought into law the defence regulations within, I think, the space of an afternoon. Let it not be forgotten that they provided, among other delicacies, for internment without trial. At a lesser level, as has already been mentioned, legislation provided for identity cards, but they were puny forerunners of the sophisticated instruments of surveillance that this Bill now poses. How should we resolve this conflict? In doing so, it is right that we bear in mind the history and spirit of the common law, and indeed of our whole history. We must keep that in the forefront of our minds. It is right that it should be invoked and held before us today. It must always exert a powerful magnetism upon any English lawyer. No less powerful—and I am glad I can say this in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who made so powerful a speech earlier today—is our common experience that when the powers of the law enforcement agencies of the executive are called into question, they always ask for more. Today, however, our country and all who live here face a threat that is quite unprecedented in character. True, at the end of the war against Japan in 1945, we were experiencing the kamikaze pilot, but our homeland has never been subjected to attacks by suicide bombers who, unlike the kamikaze, do not show up on the radar as they approach from some enemy base. We are faced today with such a bomber who typically lies deep within our communities. He gives no forewarning of his approach or of his terrorist intent. We all know how devastating such an attack can be. We know that it can strike at the very heart of the state. It is the absence of early-warning radar, if I can put it like that, of someone who is himself determined to die that should determine our resolution of that conflict. This deprivation of early warning must be mitigated somehow. We cannot simply sit back and say that the present state of our law, safeguards and protective measures is sufficient. That is where the case for the Identity Cards Bill comes in, at least in part. Provided—and this is the most crucial proviso—that this scheme’s features can be shown to be effective and workable and will help to fill a dangerous gap, my position is that enough of the severe intrusions that this Bill will permit must be tolerated for the greater good. These are unprecedentedly dangerous times, and they warrant and demand such measures as will satisfy that demand, provided that they are proportionate and fair, notwithstanding that they are hard. Enormously powerful speeches have been made today criticising this Bill, and I am deeply impressed by them. If it is not invidious to say so, I call to mind the speeches of my noble friend Lord Waddington, my noble and learned friend Lord Lyell of Markyate and the noble Lords, Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Thomas of Gresford; there have been many others. I have found them deeply troubling. In the light of the speeches made by, for example, the noble Lords, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington and Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, and of what we know about the demands by the police for these powers and a scheme of this character, I consider that on balance this Bill merits a Second Reading, although I have to add the word ““just””. Within its provisions, however, the devil does not inhabit merely the detail; he resides in many mansions, and from these he must be evicted by the processes at which this House excels. If he cannot be, the Bill deserves to fail. For example, there is the extraordinary feature that in no fewer than 60 instances the Secretary of State is given power to effect substantial legislative changes. This is virtually a skeletal enabling Bill, and I look forward with interest to see what the Select Committee has to say about it. These instances must be drastically reduced. Then there is the question of the estimates of cost, and the extraordinary disparity between respectable estimates—those of the Government and the LSE, for example—has to be resolved, as my noble and learned friend Lord Lyell has said. Chapter and verse need to be given by the police and the security authorities of the way in which the Bill will help. Much too wide access is given to the register. These are just a few of the many matters with which I trust the House will closely concern itself as we give this properly intentioned but, I am afraid, deeply flawed Bill the scrutiny it demands.