Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I am coming to it, as the bishop said. ““Voluntary”” means ““voluntary””; ““must”” means ““must””—that is rolling out the logic. To make matters abundantly clear, the manifesto talks specifically of introducing ID cards on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports. The Bill, however, via designation, which the Government have made absolutely plain they intend to implement vis-à-vis passports as soon as practical, would mean that ID cards would be rolled out initially on a compulsory basis as people renewed their passports. You could not renew them unless you had an ID card—it is as simple as that. Last time, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made that this point:"““The indirect compulsion denies me the right to travel if I apply only for a passport that I do want, but not for an identity card that I do not want””.—[Official Report, 23/1/06; col. 974.]" As the Home Affairs Committee said about ID cards:"““For most people, to travel abroad and to drive are fundamentals. It cannot be argued that these would be given up voluntarily. To describe the first phase of the Government’s proposals as ‘voluntary’ stretches the English language to breaking point””." Even John Denham, chairman of the committee and a strong supporter of ID cards, owned up to that when the Commons debated this amendment on 13 February. It is also significant that the Home Secretary did not hide behind doublespeak when he spoke against the Lords amendment on that day. It ill behoves this place in particular to add to public disconnectedness from politics in this country—see the Power Commission report last week—to deny what is clear in the manifesto. It was Humpty Dumpty, was it not, who said:"““When I use a word . . . it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less””." And we all know what happened to Humpty Dumpty. Quite apart from this, we on this side of the House also believe that the ID cards scheme, on merits, needs to be voluntary unless, of course, primary legislation is later introduced to make it compulsory—a principle that the Government conceded in the Commons with regard to Clause 6. It is no longer clear to me just what benefits the compulsory scheme would bestow, just as it has never been clear what it is likely to cost. That, too, points to a voluntary card. As the Bill has progressed, the case for it has become less clear. We do not hear much about the impact on terrorism these days. Stella Rimington and my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew may have something to do with that. Indeed, some police seem to be having second thoughts, especially in terms of the potential effects on already weak relations with the public, particularly among the minority communities. As for crime, not much about that was heard during the Commons debate on our amendment, nor has been heard today. Social security fraud is still about falsifying one’s circumstances in more than 90 per cent of cases. That leaves immigration, where different documentation prevails, and migrant workers, where there will be some modest assistance. Even the Prime Minister, defending at length his record on civil liberties in The Observer on 26 February, could muster only this to justify his grandiose ID cards scheme:"““On ID cards, there is a host of arguments, irrespective of security, why their time has come. Most people already have a range of different cards, for workplace, bank or leisure. And, contrary to what is said, it will not be an offence not to carry one””." There was nothing about compulsion or, indeed, much else. All the cards I carry I will still have to carry if I have an ID card. When I spoke at the Westminster Foundation conference on 14 February, along with Andy Burnham, Home Office Minister responsible for ID cards and passports, he more than once justified compulsion by reference to the fact that, as he put it, more than 70 per cent of the public support the introduction of ID cards. If the Government are so confident of that, why the need for compulsion? But the latest news on the polling front from an in-depth YouGov poll in the Daily Telegraph last Monday shows support down to 52 per cent. As Professor Anthony King explained:"““People doubt whether cards will materially assist in the war on terror and clearly think that a national scheme will be shot full of holes. Yet a small majority, 52 per cent, persist in saying that the cards should be brought in. They appear not to have noticed the contradiction between their long-standing predilection for cards and their up-to-date assessment of what having the cards will actually mean””." For example, 80 per cent of them believe in the corruptibility of the cards and 75 per cent in the likely substantial cost hike. In effect, as happened in New South Wales, the more the public get to learn and understand about compulsory cards, the less they like them. I will wager the Minister that, in a month or two, a poll will show more people agin the cards than for them. We will talk afterwards. Another reason for keeping the scheme voluntary is that there is still so much muddle, even at ministerial level. For example, Charles Clarke said in the Commons in the debate on 13 February in relation to the information on the register:"““Individuals . . . will not give more information to the state than they do at present. That is an important point to grasp””.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/2/06; col. 1177.]" That point has been repeatedly made and has been made in this House. But what he has not grasped is that all the audit trail data—all the validation information provided by an applicant or collected from an applicant by the registrar to verify the facts on the register, plus the security information, plus a complete set of personal reference numbers—will be recorded on every one of us. That is not information currently required for a passport, nor is the requirement in Clause 1 of the Bill where we have to give the address, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said a few minutes ago, of every place we have ever resided, whether in the UK or elsewhere and how long we resided there. That is not required for passports or for any of the other documentation referred to by the Home Secretary in the Commons. I also note that the international civil aviation organisations all call for two digitised biometrics and a picture, whereas we are going for 13. Take the issue of driving licences, to which the noble Baroness referred today. Under Clause 4 of the Bill, they could be designated, which would mean that we would have to have ID cards when we renewed our licences. In the 13 February debate, at col. 1175, the Home Secretary said that he had looked actively at designating driving licences but had decided not to do so. However, the very next day Mr Burnham stated:"““We haven’t yet, at this point, taken a decision whether or not . . . the criminal record disclosure process should become part of the designated document process, and that is also true of the driving licence””." That is a very big difference between two Ministers of the realm responsible for this ID card scheme on crucial policy. We could also take the vexed issue of access to the ID register by foreign persons and governments. One of his own Back Benchers pointedly asked the Home Secretary on 13 February whether it would be possible for the Americans to intrude on and get information from the ID register. The Home Secretary categorically denied, at col. 1177, that there would be any such access. In fact, that is definitely not the case. Clause 20 of the original Bill, headed,"““Prevention and detection of crime””," authorises the provision of information on the register if it is provided for any of the purposes specified in Section 17 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. That, as I have said before on this Bill, drives a coach and horses through protection of our ID card data, because it expressly entitles any foreign individual or authority access to the ID—