Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate until I heard the Minister’s reply. What worried me about it was that she said that she did not accept the graphic picture of what the surveillance society that we already have meant. Frankly, she does not understand—perhaps, other Ministers do not—exactly what is going on, and neither do the people of this country. Most people probably think that surveillance cameras are good. We now have 7 million of them in this country—twice as many as any other European country. That is one for every eight and a half of the population. That is a considerable number of cameras that are spying on us. People say, ““They catch burglars, and what have you””. So they do. However, we read in the newspapers last week that they are also prying into ladies’ boudoirs. There was a case that showed that one group of surveillance cameras was prying on the private life of a woman, even photographing her undressing in her bathroom. Things can get out of hand. That is why Ministers, in particular, and parliamentarians should not be complacent about what is happening. An identity card is a further intrusion into the privacy of the individual. There is no mistake about that. We have not had them before and when we have them it will be an intrusion into the privacy of every person in this country, once they eventually become compulsory. Legislation creep happens in some strange ways. I have been in this House for quite a long time and I remember when, in my first years, the late Lord Whitelaw was Leader of the House. We were discussing the interception of communications. One of the points raised was the position of Members of Parliament and Peers. We were given an absolute assurance that Members of Parliament and Peers’ phones would never be tapped. Noble Lords trusted the Government and said, ““Here is an upright man giving us an assurance that conversations between Members of Parliament and their constituents and Peers and people who care to write them should be absolutely private and sacrosanct””. But our present Prime Minister refuses to give an assurance that that is continuing. That is why it is necessary to have absolute safeguards in the Bill—not just assurances from Ministers. Like other noble Lords, I very much appreciate the care with which the Minister has dealt with this group of amendments. They are complicated and her reply was complicated. As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, we shall all read the details of her reply during the Recess and will deal further with them at Report. I issue this warning: Parliament must be ever careful of what the Government do, and the Government, if they have any democratic credentials, should be at least as keen as parliamentarians to ensure that the traditional freedoms of individuals in this country are safeguarded.