Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, this is not any old Bill. It is a Bill that has the widest ramifications in terms of cost, longevity, scope and, above all—echoing the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong—in terms of the citizen’s liberty and the relationship between the citizen and the state. I note that when the Minister made her remarks, she did not refer to any of those issues. May be that is right, may be it is not. It may be a reflection of an increasing sensitivity in this Government to what might be called the ““liberty issues”” in relation to this massive scheme. To those on the other side of the House who have said that we on these Benches have opposed the Bill root and branch, I would add the following fact: we have put forward 150 or so amendments to the Bill and roughly 40 of them have been accepted by the Government as ameliorating amendments. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was kind enough to compliment our efforts when we reached the end of Report stage. Any suggestion that the amendments that have been tabled hitherto, let alone the amendment that has been tabled today, were produced in a wrecking spirit cannot be substantiated. I accept that a Bill that started in the other place, and that has been considered as much as it has in this place, must reach the statute book. One single issue remains that prevents it reaching the statute book. The argument is made that it is wrong of us to persist in our constitutional objection and that we are wrong on constitutional grounds. Indeed, it was suggested last week that we are in some sort of constitutional crisis. There is not much sign of it in the media. I am not sure how much, if any, notice this debate will receive in the media, but as long as they remember that the ping comes from here and the pong from the other place, I am happy. This is the fifth time that we have sent the Bill back. This is a sensible and cautious House. The Cross Benches are highly sensitive to charges of an excess of partisan zeal. Therefore, why are we here again, in large numbers and led by a Cross-Bencher? It comes down to one fact, and, in saying that, I do not override the basic objection enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. On Sunday, Geoff Hoon, the Leader of the Commons, said in an interview with Sky News Sunday programme:"““But it’s always been recognised, indeed said to be a convention of the constitution, that once a government puts into its manifesto a particular proposal, then the House of Lords would not stand in the way of that proposal becoming law.""That’s one of the problems we have with ID cards. We set that out clearly in the manifesto last May—it was voted for by the British people””." Like heck it was; but what was voted for?"““We will introduce ID cards . . . rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports””." Others have been saying, and the Minister, Andy Burnham, said it this week: ““Actually forget the manifesto. What you must look at is the Bill that preceded the manifesto and the Bill that succeeded the manifesto. That is what you must look at””. That is not what the convention is. That is not what Geoffrey Hoon said—and rightly said. The trouble with Mr Hoon is that he had not read his own manifesto, or he would not have dared advance the case that, We set that out clearly in the manifesto””. Yes, they set it out clearly. The thing that sticks in the gullets of the majority in this House is the thought that we are doing our duty to support an act of dishonour by the other place in relation to a manifesto. How can it conceivably be a convention that this House should underpin a policy and a piece of legislation within months of an election where the Government explicitly said:"““We will introduce ID cards . . . rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports””." I know that noble Lords opposite do not like those words being mentioned. But they are at the heart of the constitutional feeling on this side of the House that this is not an occasion—and I agree absolutely with the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong—on which we should be inhibited in resisting this single but vital aspect of the Bill. Finally, I would just say that events shift and uncertainties seem to breed. For those of your Lordships who think that this uniquely large and comprehensive ID card scheme is a well-considered, well-founded and well-constructed plan of campaign, I beg you to read the 42 pages of witness statements given to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee last week, published yesterday, and if any of your Lordships really think, quite apart from any other issues, that this is a ship on which to sail on the high seas, I can only think that we inhabit different realms. So, it is with great enthusiasm that I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster.