Identity Cards Bill

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. 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,"““the identity card scheme to be introduced is designed to become compulsory. We therefore need to have the debate on the principle of compulsion now””.—[Official Report, 31/10/05; col. 16.]" 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.