Identity Cards Bill

It is but one example, and we have had several since 1997. On 13 February, the Government agreed that compulsory registration on the national identity register and the identity card scheme for the 20 per cent. of the population who do not have passports should require new legislation. Did they think that the remaining 80 per cent. of the population would not notice that attempt at compulsion by stealth? Unless one voluntarily applies to renew one’s passport, one will face a financial penalty. All the information set out in schedule 1 to the Identity Cards Bill must be spewed up into the Government’s great bucket of information. Some 40 million British citizens are being told that to be compelled to do something at the Government’s convenience—they will have to go through a processing centre; individually, they will probably have to pay a lot more than £30 directly; and collectively they will have to pay millions indirectly—is a voluntary process. Look at what the Government are now proposing and compare it with the words of the Home Secretary just a moment ago, when he read out his own manifesto:"““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.””" I know that the Government do not like hearing their own words, which allow the public to appreciate precisely what they mean, but they will hear them again and again until they realise that their arguments are flawed and that the public are no deafer and no more stupid than the Home Secretary. The Government have said that identity cards will defeat terrorism, welfare fraud, general crime, immigration breaches and identity fraud. They have said that it is vital to introduce identity cards and the national identity register to deal with all those problems. If that were the magic of this great scheme, they would not ““let it roll out”” over the next 10 years; they would have introduced it yesterday or the day before. The Government have stopped believing in anything that they say, and even if they keep saying it, they know that it will not produce the results that they claim. There is no urgency in their programme—assertion has followed assertion, but they know that that will not do. They have resorted to an argument based on public convenience and a deliberately misleading reliance on an international obligation to introduce biometric passports. Many Labour Members realise that the argument in relation to biometric passports is utterly flawed, because it is simply not a proper comparison. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) mentioned on 13 February, biometric passports will contain perhaps three biometrics, not 13. There is no obligation under our international treaties to make the passport a gateway to the national identity register. The Government will not tell us what further documents are to constitute that gateway. One of the 61 powers that the Bill gives to the Home Secretary to make law by statutory instruments allows him to create a list of designated documents. So far, the Government admit that it includes passports, residence documents and other forms of travel documents—but what are those other documents, and where is the list? They have not a clue, and it shows every time they argue for the Bill and against the Lords amendments. What will this exercise cost? Again, the Government have not a clue, and it shows. [Laughter.] It is interesting that they seem to think that this attempt fundamentally to change the relationship between citizen and state is a matter of risibility. The problem that they face is that they no longer have any understanding of the public, any understanding of what they are in business for, or any understanding of what this House is for. The longer they go on sniggering, the longer the public will find their arguments increasingly unattractive. Will this resistance to the Lords amendments make the national identity register and the identity cards scheme fit for purpose, to use a favourite phrase? They have not a clue, and the history of this legislation shows it. Do they know if and when, or how, these proposals will adversely affect the individual? They have not a clue, and if they do, they do not care. Parliament should protect the citizen against the overbearing Executive. That is our duty, and tonight it should also be our pleasure. We are not here for the convenience of this arrogant Government. Let us hold firm for liberty and common sense. I urge the House to support the Lords amendments.