UK Parliament / Open data

Identity Cards Bill

Proceeding contribution from Earl of Erroll (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill.
My Lords, I have four quick points. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, if these things are so wonderful and convenient, everyone will want one—so what is the problem? The noble Lord, Lord Gould’s, concept of voluntary sounds a bit like the Army sergeant who walked into the canteen and said, ““Any musicians here?””. When someone with very delicate fingers volunteered that he was, he was sent to the officers’ mess to move the grand piano. Secondly, I say to the Minister that it is splitting hairs very finely to suggest that foreign agencies may not have direct access to the database but they can get the information on the database. That is splitting hairs very finely. I am very glad to hear that they will not have direct access to the database as that would be a major security risk. Thirdly, I presume that Motion F will be agreed to because there is no Motion suggesting that it will not be. That means that the system will be self-checking. The commissioner will be part of the department which will be checking itself. I very much disapprove of these modern systems that do not have outside checks. The commissioner should be answerable to Parliament. It is horrific that the Commons turned down that proposal. Given that it has been turned down, I think we must keep this thing voluntary. I might think otherwise if we were to have an independent commissioner who was outside the Secretary of State’s power and reported directly to Parliament. I still would not be happy at all though. How can an employee criticise their own boss? It would not be good for one’s career prospects. Finally, a lot has been said about the manifesto commitment. It is extreme hypocrisy when a government use a manifesto commitment to drive a proposal through the House until it does not suit them, when they abandon the doctrine of the manifesto commitment. They cannot have it both ways. If they force through this proposal against their manifesto commitment, I think that in future they will have to drop their demand that we support a manifesto commitment without any modification. We should be permitted in future to modify manifesto commitments in the light of current thinking in the country since the last general election, and given that the Government had the support of only about one-third of the voters in the country.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

679 c559 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top