Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords opposite who have a great interest in this amendment. However, I thought it might be helpful to the House if I put one or two issues on the record before the debate widened out. I make it clear that on this occasion I support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and oppose the Government’s Motion. That is the only time today when I shall oppose a government Motion. I support every argument that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has made. It would not be right to take the House’s time in repeating those arguments. I will confine myself to addressing another matter of parliamentary procedure to which the Minister and one or two of her colleagues have referred in previous debates on the Bill and, more recently, in their contributions to national newspapers. The Minister has said that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is in breach of the Salisbury convention. Let me meet that accusation head on. I say very firmly that this House should not entertain that view. The Salisbury convention, to which we continue to subscribe, is an agreement between the Labour and Conservative Parties in this House that neither party would, when in opposition, vote at Second Reading against legislation that was set out in the governing party’s manifesto or seek a wrecking amendment to it. Many argue that the Salisbury convention may have evolved with time, and certainly with the change to this House in 1999, but the formulation I have given was the maximalist one. To be as fair as possible to the Government I will, for the sake of this argument, apply that today. What did the Labour manifesto say on ID cards? The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, quoted the precise words. It states:"““We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports””." Nothing in this amendment obstructs that manifesto commitment. The Salisbury convention means that this House could not block a genuinely voluntary Bill. But that is not what this amendment does. If this amendment is passed, the Government can still introduce identity cards. They can still back them up with a national register. They can still roll them out on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports. Indeed, responding to a comment made by the Minister in another place, Mr Burnham, on the radio this morning, they can still roll them out incrementally—that is still perfectly possible. There is nothing in this amendment against the Salisbury doctrine, but there is a great deal in it for the voluntary approach promised in Labour’s manifesto. This House is surely entitled to stick to its guns on a matter which the Constitution Committee of this House said represents a fundamental change in the relationship between state and a people, and where that fundamental change was not set out in the manifesto. Ministers have said, including the noble Baroness at other stages of the Bill, that the fact that Ministers have made speeches about a compulsory scheme is sufficient to bring that part of the manifesto within the Salisbury convention, and that we on the Conservative Benches should therefore accept the Government’s proposals for compulsion by stealth. We believe that is a poor argument by the noble Baroness’s extremely high standards, but that it is certainly poor by anyone’s standards. Since when, one might ask, does a ministerial interview or a past failed Bill bind this House? Ministers had a chance to state clearly and openly in the manifesto that if elected they would force us all to be registered and to pay for an ID card with our passport before being given the freedom to go abroad for work, for a holiday, or for whatever reason—but they did not take that opportunity. That was their choice. Having made that choice, they should not present legislation that is not on a voluntary basis but on the basis of compulsion, call on the Salisbury convention, and expect those of us on these Benches to cave in. That is not the way that Parliament has ever worked; and I hope that it will never work that way. Let us consider for just a moment what the consequences might be in the very dim and distant future if one accepted today that things should be allowed to work in that way. What if a government deliberately left out of a manifesto any mention of plans that Ministers had in mind—but about which they did not wish to put off or deter the voters? If they did so and were then allowed to claim the protection of the Salisbury convention because Ministers had made speeches on the matter, it would be an incentive and a reward for being economical with the truth. Surely, none of us would want that as part of our system of government. That is for future consideration, but it could be a consequence of today accepting any argument that we on these Benches should be bound on this Motion by the Salisbury convention. Let us hear no more from any quarter, either in Parliament or in newspaper articles, about any so-called breach of the Salisbury convention by these Benches. There is none in this case; and there will be none. I firmly support the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury.