Identity Cards Bill

The great irony of the Bill is that it has been brought forward by a Labour Government. I have said this before and I shall repeat it. If the Labour Party had been in opposition when such a Bill had been brought forward, there would have been not only a parliamentary explosion but a nationwide explosion. On marches up and down the country, people would have been protesting that we were losing our well-established individual freedoms. We have heard the details of these provisions and what is likely to happen. I believe that everything that has been said by those speaking to the amendments will come to pass. They are bound to come to pass because what is proposed is likely to turn out to be an administrative and civil liberties nightmare. We are talking about the registration of 60 million people—eventually, the compulsory registration of 60 million people. Let us not forget that very shortly, if I am not mistaken, a national child register will come into operation. You can see what will happen. The Bill currently applies to people over the age of 16; the national child register will then be combined with the national identity register and the identity card. This Labour Government, who used to want to look after you from the cradle to the grave, now want to be after you from the cradle to the grave. They will have every bit of information that they want and which they can alter from time to time and increase from time to time. They will know where you live, what you do, how many cars you have, and so on. The Government really believe that this can be done for 60 million people. Let us think of some of the administrative disasters that we have had so far. Indeed, let us think of just one—the Child Support Agency. That has been an administrative disaster in every respect. It has not done what was intended; it has not done what was promised; and it has not given to women the benefits that were promised under the Bill introducing it. We recently found out that this organisation, set up to chase after defaulters, has managed to get £8 million in arrears at a cost of £12 million in administration. In that organisation, far from the absent parent being caught and made to pay, more men—it is usually men—probably pay less than they would have done had the matter continued to be administered by the courts. This has been at a huge cost to the Exchequer, and to the lives of some men who were so oppressed that they committed suicide. Despite having failed to get some money out of absent parents, who are relatively few in number, the Government expect to be able eventually to register 60 million people. I simply do not believe that that is possible. These are ameliorating amendments. They will not cause the Bill to fall. We in this House are doing our best to make the Bill more acceptable. The provision will not work. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was absolutely right. The general public will rise up against it when they see exactly what is involved. Whoever is in power then—if we have a government foolish enough to proceed with this idea—will feel the electoral backlash.