lord of the blog

« Responses | Main | David Blunket »

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

First Lord's speech 31.10.05

I made my first speech in the Lords on Monday and I hope I have managed with Jennifer's help to link this entry into the full text of the speech. There is also a link to Hansard. I hope! (It's getting a bit technical for me!)

Lord Soley: My Lords, I very much welcome this opportunity to make my first speech in this House, having served 26 years as a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons, and with almost as many years as a political activist doing all the strange things that political activists do in parties, which the rest of the world does not understand.
I have to say that I was a little ambivalent about coming, not because I did not think that I could do a useful job here—I am sure that I can, and I know what I want to do here. It was not because I think this place does not serve a very useful purpose—it serves a very important purpose, and sometimes one that is not well understood. Nor was it because the place is not representative. I say that knowing and insisting that the elected Chamber must and will always be the dominant Chamber. But one thing that struck me about this place some time ago was the way in which the appointments system can change the face of the place and, in some ways, makes it more representative of our nation. In the number of women, ethnic minorities, disabilities and so on, this House is in many ways more representative than the House of Commons. If I had said 10 years ago that, a few years later, we would have the first black woman Leader of the House of Lords, a lot of people would have said

31 Oct 2005 : Column 30

that I was exaggerating—even though we had a black Member of Parliament in the late 19th century, who was elected. We need to remember such things. It was my ambivalence. I felt that maybe I was a born-again masochist, and simply could not give up politics and the business of government in one form or another. I have a horrible feeling that that may be true.
Because of my 26 years in Parliament, the awful thought suddenly came back to me that in one of my many previous jobs I was a probation officer. During my early training for that job, I was asked by the court to see a guy who had just been released from what was called "seven years' preventive detention". At that time, preventive detention was a sentence of up to seven years, even for really minor offences, as it was in his case. It was used for people who had had many convictions, and if noble Lords think that "three strikes and you're out" is new, forget it—it has always been around; it is just the number of strikes that has changed.
Altogether, this guy had had 26 years in closed institutions of one type or another. He had done his seven years, went straight down the road, picked up a brick, chucked it through the jewellers' window and stood there waiting to be arrested, which he duly was. For his sins, which must have been many and varied, he was sent to see me. I said to him, "You're really just trying to get back inside again, aren't you?" He said, with commendable honesty, "Yeah. Is there any chance?" I thought, "I've done 26 years in the House of Commons. This is worrying".
Somewhere out there, perhaps that man is listening to this debate. I would like to think that he is and that he could say what I said to him. I said that I would write to him when he was back inside again. So perhaps he will write to me and ask all the things that probation officers ask when they write to prisoners, such as: what is the food like; what is the governor like; and do you get banged up for this, that or the other? I would be able to say, "Well, the food here is pretty good, and actually we don't have a governor; we have a very nice chap who sits on a Woolsack. On top of that, we don't get banged up for speaking out of turn".
Indeed, from my relatively short time here, it seems to me that Members of the House of Lords have turned speaking out of turn into an art form, whereas in the Commons it is a highly developed statistical skill. I am sure that the Speaker now has to take a degree in statistics in order to get the calling of Members right. Both systems work, although if you tried to take the place of another person who was getting up to speak during Questions in the Commons, there would be a pretty impressive row, and I do not know how well it would work. In any event, no doubt my ex-client would have sat there thinking, "This poor lad. I always knew he was going off the rails". He would have written to me, I am sure.
The other thing that struck me when I came here—I had not noticed it before, despite the fact that I used to show constituents and others this place as well as the House of Commons—was that two lines, two sword lengths apart, are not drawn on the Floor in this

31 Oct 2005 : Column 31

Chamber. Those of us who were in the Commons can draw two conclusions from that. One is that noble Lords are far more respectful and decent to each other; the other is that here there is an opportunity to get your jab in first, which is the much more brutalised approach that one finds in the House of Commons.
Those are some of my initial thoughts, and I now want to turn briefly to the subject of the Bill. If I had been asked five or 10 years ago whether we should have identity cards, I would have said no, but I would not have said that with any great principle or strength of feeling because I knew then, as I do now, that many democratic countries around the world have identity cards. So I do not think that this can be turned into a matter of principle.
One thing that made me begin to think again about the need for identity cards was the fact that in the late 1990s the area that I represented—Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush—like a number of areas represented by constituency MPs, had a very large number of ethnic minorities. They came here either as asylum seekers or refugees, or they came for work or other purposes. It is true that sometimes there is problem of abuse by such people. It happens, and we should bear in mind that towards the end of my time in that constituency I would have 400 current cases at any given time, so you do build up a lot of experience. But that was not the only kind of abuse; there was also abuse by employers, and I cannot stress that enough.
I shall return to the subject of how an identity card might work on that basis in a moment but, first, I want to say that I came across employers who knowingly employed people who should not have been here—they had entered the country illegally. On top of that, those employers were paying below the minimum wage and, on top of that, they were taking money off the employees for accommodation and food. That is particularly true in some trades—the restaurant trade among others. They would also charge them tax. One was told, "We will collect your tax for you". I understand the difficulty of saying that an ID card will solve that. We need a system whereby an employer does not have an excuse and cannot say he did not know. Consider some of the cases before the courts at the moment. I do not want to mention the Chinese cockle-pickers' case as that is at present before the courts, but I want to use it to remind Members how desperately serious the situation is. I do not know how we can control the situation without a much better system of identification than we have.
I believe that Clause 18 is profoundly important as it says that one does not have to carry a card at all times. That is something that troubles people outside this House. If one does not have to carry one's card at all times, it will not be as intrusive and will not lead to stop-and-search as some groups fear. Clause 14 is also important as it enables one to know, up to a certain limit, what is on a card. The limits concern not the personal information per se on a card, but certain circumstances in which security forces might want to look at a card. My noble friend Lady Kennedy has said that she will put me right on this later, but remember

31 Oct 2005 : Column 32

that one has some protection under the European Court of Human Rights legislation because access to a card for certain reasons has to be proportionate.
The ID Bill was bound to come. It is very difficult to argue that modern democracies do not need such legislation. Cards are not counter-intuitive to the democratic form, to the rule of law or to freedom of speech. If they were, that would be a principal reason to oppose them. The Government have to get the detail right and I hope that they will listen to and consider some of the amendments that have been tabled because people must feel confident in the system. Confidence in the system, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, will know, is very important. As the opposition spokesman said, this will be a long debate. I hope that there will be some movement on amendments, but overall the Bill is necessary. It was bound to come about and if we use it well it can protect people from extreme abuse which is something I very much want to do.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/51031-04.htm#51031-04_head3

Hello Clive, very interesting, thanks. I am in favour of ID cards and have heard only one strong objection from a person who said people should not have to make any payment for the card - if any payment were requested he would refuse the card.

Clive,

Lets get this straight. You want to force the entire country to hold identity cards in order to control the relatively minor issue of illegal immigration. Perhaps you could explain what the difference is between a card and passport then?

"Clause 14 is also important as it enables one to know, up to a certain limit, what is on a card. The limits concern not the personal information per se on a card, but certain circumstances in which security forces might want to look at a card."

You speak very calmly and obediently about a card which would hold information about me that I'm not aware is even being collected and recorded by the government. Then you speak with equal passivity about making that information being made available to "security forces". Your use of that term rather than "law enforcement" or "the courts" says everything there is to say. You don't even begin to suggest that these "security forces" should ever have to show cause before a judge prior to access my personal information. Nor do you say anything about whether these "security forces would be domestic or foreign. And why would you? Like your leader, you are in love with authority, especially when it comes with an Amercian accent. The word of these "secturity forces" (whether domestic or foreign) is enough for you.

For my part, I will never pay for or hold your "security forces" identity tag. We are no longer talking about a creeping move towards a police state. We're already there.

I and many others like me will go to prison before we let your leaders tattoo numbers on our arms.

S.

Clive: Along with at least 10,000 other people, I have pledged not to have an ID card and am willing to go to prison for it. In doing so, we all be making the entire scheme unworkable - just as the poll tax collapsed due to non-payment. I am sick of government intervention into our private lives and its power of surveillance. The creation of a national database that is out of the control of the ordinary citizen, but which contains so much information on us and can be cross-referenced to other databases (NHS, Inland Revenue, etc), is authoritarian and completely and totally unacceptable. Do you want to send people like me who have not been convicted for so much as a speeding offence go to prison for wanting to protect our identity and privacy? You are, after all, a strong proponent of privacy for celebrities and politicians. How about private for the ordinary citizen?

As for the European Convention on Human Rights, this Blair government has already abrogated on ECHR to enable it to enact right-wing anti-terrorism legislation that goes further than Thatcher ever did in undermining our human rights. The ECHR therefore offers no protection to the civilian.

Some of the world's largest democracies - the United States and India - have no ID card system and do not want one. Some of those countries that have been hit by terrorism - Spain and Germany - have ID card systems and these have not deterred terrorism. Spain also has a big problem with illegal immigration, which is far higher on a per capita basis than the UK. ID cards have not prevented this problem. I spoke to a senior official from the Spanish embassy last month and he was saying there is little the government can do about the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from North Africa. I also do not believe that Germany, with its ID card system and the culture of efficiency, is better than the UK in combatting fraud. A centralised register may even make identity theft a greater problem.

The sole purpose of the ID card is unwarranted state surveillance of private individuals, using those who died on 11 September 2001 as justification. It must and it will be stopped and parliament will be forced to repeal this atrocious piece of legislation, which I find more offensive than any other action the Blair government has taken. This is Labour's poll tax.

The Bill contains no provision for Parliament to decide what information will be stored in the national database. This will be left to the discretion of the Home Office. So, a future Home Secretary - perhaps a Conservative - may decide that medical records can be made available on the national database for authorities and perhaps Quangos and non-government agencies (ie those awarded government contracts for public services or employers) to browse. It is an outrageous abuse of power.

As for the European Convention on Human Rights, this Blair government has already abrogated on ECHR to enable it to enact right-wing anti-terrorism legislation that goes further than Thatcher ever did in undermining our human rights. The ECHR therefore offers no protection to the civilian.

Some of the world's largest democracies - the United States and India - have no ID card system and do not want one. Some of those countries that have been hit by terrorism - Spain and Germany - have ID card systems and these have not deterred terrorism. Spain also has a big problem with illegal immigration, which is far higher on a per capita basis than the UK. ID cards have not prevented this problem. I spoke to a senior official from the Spanish embassy last month and he was saying there is little the government can do about the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from North Africa. I also do not believe that Germany, with its ID card system and the culture of efficiency, is better than the UK in combatting fraud. A centralised register may even make identity theft a greater problem.

The sole purpose of the ID card is unwarranted state surveillance of private individuals, using those who died on 11 September 2001 as justification. It must and it will be stopped and parliament will be forced to repeal this atrocious piece of legislation, which I find more offensive than any other action the Blair government has taken. This is Labour's poll tax.

The Bill contains no provision for Parliament to decide what information will be stored in the national database. This will be left to the discretion of the Home Office. So, a future Home Secretary - perhaps a Conservative - may decide that medical records can be made available on the national database for authorities and perhaps Quangos and non-government agencies (ie those awarded government contracts for public services or employers) to browse.

It is an outrageous abuse of power by a government that wants to control all aspects of our lives - what we eat, how much we drink, whether we smoke, our right to hunt - and attempts to instill fear - terrorism, bird flu, etc - to control the population. I do not want them interfering in people's lives and will not participate with this damned ID database.

More information on ID cards

NO2ID: www.no2id.net
Pledge to resist: www.pledgebank.com/refuse2
Defy-ID: www.defy-id.org.uk

Surely the system is easily workable, like in America where it is impossible to drive legally, open a bank account or obtain insurances and most services/jobs without a Social Security card and/or drivers licence.

When ID cards are made available to 60 million Brits, there would be no need to imprison refuseniks as what could happen is those who do not hold up-to-date ID will simply freeze themselves out of receiving services while appearing suspect as to what they are hiding or afraid of.

Social pressures will ensure that people conform volunatrily, thus identifying the non-conformists while still leaving them with a choice to either conform or not.

What are the refuseniks going to do when the DVLA insists on an ID card for licence renewal ...and when it comes to needing bank loans, mortgages, services from the Passport Office, Inland Revenue, State Pension, NHS medical card etc., ...

Imagine having ID and a spouse who refused ID or if you are single, receiving a proposal of marriage from a partner who refused ID ... how many close family members would approve and how much good would it do other family members when it came to legal matters and any children of such a union, voluntarily setting themselves apart from the rest of society?

Ingrid: I have no problem with a piece of plastic with my face, name and address on. I have plenty of ID cards: my driving licence, my press card, my bank cards, my national insurance card, my video rental card, my library user card, my Labour Party membership card, etc. Another card is not a problem for me. I object to the national database and the potential abuses of this system by any future Home Secretary.

The legislation is poor legislation as it does not give enough safeguards. I also believe that a centralised database that collects over 50 pieces of information about an individual (perhaps more, if a future Home Secretary chooses) could lead to abuse by the authorities or mistakes that could damage an individual's liberty and security. This is why Americans refuse to have a national ID card - although the British system (retinal scans, fingerprints, etc) is being introduced partly due to pressure from the US government.

Social pressures, the law and the possibility of being made a social outcast did not stop people from refusing to pay their poll tax, which sunk both the tax and the Thatcher administration. You should not think that the "refuseniks" will just try to hide from the system, but will eventually be herded by imprisonment, impoverishment and other methods of state intimidation to taking up an ID card. There are thousands of people angry about this. It would not take a lot to sabotage the system. In Australia, civil disobedience destroyed the ID card legislation introduced in 1987, which had similarities with the British system - although a strong parliamentary opposition in the Senate helped end it. Sadly, the UK does not have a democratically elected second chamber with the power to overturn legislation and the government can get it through using the Parliament Act, which is why the ID cards are going to be passed not matter how flawed and intrusive the proposals are.

http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/campaigns.html
http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/idcard_faq.html

Over the years I have done contract computing work for health authorities, medical practices, financial services, social services, telecoms operators, law firms, chartered surveyors and, in all cases, had access to files and databases. Anybody can find out anything about anyone. My view is, given today's technology, there is no such thing as privacy.

Surely a central database is better than unknown numbers of files and databases we might never know about. Databases are only as good as what is put into them and clerks make errors. At least with a central database that everyone knows about, it gives people an opportunity to challenge errors or abuses. The 50 pieces of information are already out there in the public domain. Having a centralised database would be more efficient, save time, trouble and expense.

Technology has moved on enormously since 1987. Refusing an ID card and refusing to pay a tax seem to me to be two totally different things that can't be compared. If someone resides in the US without a Social Security card, it speaks volumes. There are 60 million Brits, so what if thousands object. 10% will always find something to object about.

Already, the plastic cards many of us hold can tell any stranger what we look like, where and how we live, our telephone number and car registration, income and spending habits, type of material we like to read or view on video, our politics, not to mention all the data on our health, insurances, shopping, passport, travel, pensions, telecoms usage etc.

If security forces investigated any one of us today, they could easily find ways to piece together all the data and pool it into a paper/computer file that we might never know about.

I agree ID cards are going to be passed no matter how flawed or intrusive the proposals are perceived. Which is why it is better to push for better safeguards on ID cards rather than waste energy on flatly refusing their introduction.

Ingrid: If six million people refuse to have an ID card, it will not be possible to introduce the scheme. If just one per cent of the population refuses, it will still sabotage the government's efforts.

I agree that the numerous numbers of databases that we have no access to or do not know about - particularly those held by private companies - have eroded our privacy. But that does not mean we have to institutionalise it with a centralised database that can be extended or cross referenced with other databases. I actually do not think this national database will reduce waste or be more accurate. Experience in recent years - such as the passports fiasco or the family tax credit - indicates it could be costly and cumbersome. This is no joke. The government will be controlling your identity. If they cock up with just a small fraction, your life could be ruined. And I disagree that it will be a simple matter to correct clerical errors. As a self-employed person who has to deal with Inland Revenue, I have no faith in "more than my job's worth" bureaucrats who always shift the buck.

In my mind, it would be simpler and more effective just to turn the NI card into a photocard and leave it at that. The NI card could be used for claiming benefits and in employment and need only include data such as date of birth and address. There is a database set up already and it includes people who are long-term residents, not just citizens. The question is, why does the government want to have more information and control the amount of information held on a database, as well as who has access? Why does it need to be more than just a NI card? Because the government wants to snoop on us. I've got nothing to hide. I've not even been given a parking ticket, I don't drink alcohol before driving and have never been stopped by the police. But I want full control over the information held on me and who has access. I don't want some petty bureaucrat rumaging through my personal details.

I actually wrote to John Denham (who has championed ID cards) about my misgivings about the ID cards, particularly its flaws and the potential for abuse. We had an exchange of emails in which he dismissed all the flaws as minor problems that could be solved after the legislation is passed. This simply is not good enough. This is our lives, our identities, our liberty and our privacy the government is playing around with. This government has repeatedly enacted poor legislation which is rushed through on a three-line whip. The ID cards are being pushed through with complete disregard for the numerous studies and criticisms by academics and independent experts. So, I and many others have tried lobbying and got nowhere. The only option now is civil disobedience.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: