Identity Cards Bill

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 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.