lord of the blog

« Palestine | Main | Glorification of Terrorism »

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

House of Lords. Identity Cards

The contribution I made in the extended post below deals with my concern that the Lords are simply repeating the debates in the House of Commons.

It was interesting that one member said in response to my comments that the "Government had not listened". This must be one of the most misused phrases in the political lexicon. Hardly anyone could not have heard the debate about cost.

In this case the phrase "have not listened" translates to "didn't do what we wanted them to do." A dodgy argument for an unelected chamber to use so widely as it appears to be used here.

Lord Soley: My Lords, I am slightly puzzled by this debate. When I read the amendments, I assumed that the debate would essentially be about costs. When one listens to the debate or reads the article by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in today's Guardian, it is pretty clear that the debate is still about the principle and this is becoming very close to a Second Reading debate.

I do not wish to go into it again, but if this is about the principle, bear in mind that many democracies around the world, which enjoy the rule of law, have identity cards. It is not crippling to the population; they are popular; and the idea is fairly popular here. I understand that saying the system will be costly undermines public confidence in the argument in favour of identity cards. As a party politician, it would be wrong of me to dismiss that as being without relevance. However, it seems to me that if the issue is about costs, I am not sure that the amendments address that at all. To give the noble Baroness her due, she focused on quite an important part: the tendering process.

I have a great deal of respect for my noble friend Lord Barnett who has a very impressive record on this. He has said that this House is at its best when it holds the other House and the Government to account. However, I am not convinced that it does it best in this way. If the matter really is about expense, frankly I would not have heard all these arguments before, as I have. I have heard them in the House of Commons and in the wider public area. So what new things are being said here other than, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, straightforwardly said in his Guardian article today, "I am against it in principle"? That is what it is really about.

There is a case for looking in detail at the expense, not because other countries have done it at a perfectly reasonable price and not because this country did not have an ID card before—which of course it did have in the rather special circumstances of the Second World War—but because we are employing so much new technology. The key question is how well the technology will work. Expense alone does not tell one that, which is why such matters are often better dealt with in the more detailed analysis of a Select Committee or a special committee of that type. I often

16 Jan 2006 : Column 440

wonder whether we would not be better placed to advance our arguments on the issue of costs if we did it that way.

It is true to say that if the expense of an ID card comes in very high and if it stays high, a great deal of political damage will be done to the government who introduce it. You only need think of the analogy of putting up the cost of the television licence. Think of putting up the cost of an ID card. Think of the initial cost of the ID card or, as my honourable friend the Minister indicates with the movement of his hands, a driving licence. There is a range of issues and arguments around this, but they are not being addressed today.

I say this cautiously, because I am a new Member of this House and do not like to jump to the conclusion that I have understood all the subtleties of this place when I obviously have not. I worry, however, that if we, as political parties—whether Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat—simply recycle the arguments that the parties had in another place, we do not enhance our status. We ought to be about enhancing our status as well as examining the evidence.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Soley, sits down, he said that he did not think that this was the way to hold the other place to account on this project. What would be the way to do that?

Lord Soley: My Lords, I indicated that if noble Lords are going to look at the technology and costs, they might want to do that in a much more detailed way in Committee, as well as questioning Ministers. The broad thrust of my remarks, however, was that most of the arguments put today, including by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, have been heard before. That is not a reason for not doing it again. I am not saying that it should never be done again. I am simply saying that it is probably not the most effective way of holding the other place to account.

We need to be much clearer. I think the noble Lord ought to come out and say "I am going to use every trick in the book to undermine the political credibility of this enterprise because I am against it in principle". I could understand that, and would have no problem with it. However, the noble Lord has put forward an amendment which—as my noble friend Lord Barnett said—is not very effective in doing what he, and certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said they wanted it to do.

Soley: My Lords, I am slightly puzzled by this debate. When I read the amendments, I assumed that the debate would essentially be about costs. When one listens to the debate or reads the article by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in today's Guardian, it is pretty clear that the debate is still about the principle and this is becoming very close to a Second Reading debate.

I do not wish to go into it again, but if this is about the principle, bear in mind that many democracies around the world, which enjoy the rule of law, have identity cards. It is not crippling to the population; they are popular; and the idea is fairly popular here. I understand that saying the system will be costly undermines public confidence in the argument in favour of identity cards. As a party politician, it would be wrong of me to dismiss that as being without relevance. However, it seems to me that if the issue is about costs, I am not sure that the amendments address that at all. To give the noble Baroness her due, she focused on quite an important part: the tendering process.

I have a great deal of respect for my noble friend Lord Barnett who has a very impressive record on this. He has said that this House is at its best when it holds the other House and the Government to account. However, I am not convinced that it does it best in this way. If the matter really is about expense, frankly I would not have heard all these arguments before, as I have. I have heard them in the House of Commons and in the wider public area. So what new things are being said here other than, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, straightforwardly said in his Guardian article today, "I am against it in principle"? That is what it is really about.

There is a case for looking in detail at the expense, not because other countries have done it at a perfectly reasonable price and not because this country did not have an ID card before—which of course it did have in the rather special circumstances of the Second World War—but because we are employing so much new technology. The key question is how well the technology will work. Expense alone does not tell one that, which is why such matters are often better dealt with in the more detailed analysis of a Select Committee or a special committee of that type. I often

16 Jan 2006 : Column 440

wonder whether we would not be better placed to advance our arguments on the issue of costs if we did it that way.

It is true to say that if the expense of an ID card comes in very high and if it stays high, a great deal of political damage will be done to the government who introduce it. You only need think of the analogy of putting up the cost of the television licence. Think of putting up the cost of an ID card. Think of the initial cost of the ID card or, as my honourable friend the Minister indicates with the movement of his hands, a driving licence. There is a range of issues and arguments around this, but they are not being addressed today.

I say this cautiously, because I am a new Member of this House and do not like to jump to the conclusion that I have understood all the subtleties of this place when I obviously have not. I worry, however, that if we, as political parties—whether Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat—simply recycle the arguments that the parties had in another place, we do not enhance our status. We ought to be about enhancing our status as well as examining the evidence.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Soley, sits down, he said that he did not think that this was the way to hold the other place to account on this project. What would be the way to do that?

Lord Soley: My Lords, I indicated that if noble Lords are going to look at the technology and costs, they might want to do that in a much more detailed way in Committee, as well as questioning Ministers. The broad thrust of my remarks, however, was that most of the arguments put today, including by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, have been heard before. That is not a reason for not doing it again. I am not saying that it should never be done again. I am simply saying that it is probably not the most effective way of holding the other place to account.

We need to be much clearer. I think the noble Lord ought to come out and say "I am going to use every trick in the book to undermine the political credibility of this enterprise because I am against it in principle". I could understand that, and would have no problem with it. However, the noble Lord has put forward an amendment which—as my noble friend Lord Barnett said—is not very effective in doing what he, and certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said they wanted it to do.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60116-07.htm

What part of "ID cards? We don't need no steenkin' ID cards" doesn't this government understand?

The government has yet to demonstrate to any sentient being one single reason that validates this plan.

Biometric passports are on the way I am told, so why simply not make the carrying of ID (for instance, a passport) compulsory, rather than creating another form of ID?

Regs, Andy

Charles Clarke has admitted in the past that ID cards would not prevent terrorism.

It would be unlikely to prevent fraud (and probably can be copied by fraudsters. It won't stop organised crime.

It is highly unlikely that violent muggers will think twice.

So why is the Government going to force us to buy this stupid bureaucratic trinket? Wouldn't the money be spent better on police patrolling the streets (which i don't see at the moment, despite all the talk of Safer Neighbourhood Teams)

I have one major problem with this ID scheme. I do not want the state to own my identity or any data on me. Citizens are already disempowered when it comes to personal data. The national database opens the way for further invasion of privacy and bureaucratic intervention in our lives - it is more wide-ranging than anything in existence elsewhere in the world, even more comprehensive than ID database schemes in dictatorships such as China. Moreover, future Home Secretaries will be able to add more areas of data to the database without parliamentary approval and could in the future be linked up to the new national health database. Do you want bureaucrats rummaging data on your private life without your knowledge?

Given the fact that the government and the police can summarily detain without trial under anti-terrorism powers - with terrorism defined as damage to any property for political ends - I dread to think how this database could be used against people in the name of national security and who will become suspects. It will allow unprecedented levels of state surveillance. We've had some pretty bad Home Secretaries in recent years, but there could be worse in the future with this legislation.

I am one of more than 10,000 who will refuse to participate in this scheme. I have no convictions, but if the government and parliament impose it they will be criminalising thousands like me who want to retain our liberty from big government interference.

Clive seems to have missed the point on the debate, which is that the cost issue is crucial in understanding the burdens placed upon citizens and particularily as history has shown that such schemes have come in significantly higher than initially stated. Furthermore the second chamber has every right to assert its arguments in detail to inform members of why there are reasoned arguments against such a scheme.

The cost equation has also a relevance in balancing out the efficacy of such a card in the light of recent revelations about the limitations of the card in its potential forgeability by persons unknown.

I rather think this is another one of Clive's attempts on behalf of the government to rubbish opposition on a shaky argumant. To rail against the unelectability of the members and of their reduced rights to have opportunities to thoroughly scrutinise legislation, whilst being unelectable oneself shows the serious ambivalence that inhabits this government in regard to the Lords. Through its agents the lords must bend to the government will regardless of its democratic ethos.

Clive must surely eventually realise that the more authoritarian this government becomes in using executive powers and in its obdurate stance to reasonable arguments that it becomes less and less trusted to have our interests at heart, a particularily pertinant issue given the serious liberty issues raised by Dan above.

Clive: Andrew raises an important point. When Labour can't get legislation through the Lords when the upper chamber takes a principled stand, the old claim that it is unelected and therefore has a moral responsibility to allow the "will of the commoners" to prevail. If there is such a problem with the Lords, then abolish the chamber altogether and replace it with an elected chamber. Why did Labour not do this? Because on the whole the Lords is a talking shop that the government can control through its use of patronage. If you had a problem with an unelected chamber making decisions, then why on earth did you take up a title of nobility? Either make a sound case in defence of ID cards and the national database or remain silent, don't drag another completely different issue of constitutional reform into the equation.

To wear ones robes under Blair's patronage is seen by those as some right, a hierachy of the new establishment. Whearas those who oppose the governments policies in the Lords are rubbished as a vestige of the old order.

Fact - Both are unelectable and more sinister Blair has ressurrected this form of old patronage to reward loyalties and sychophancies and create a new market of private 'investors' within hospitals and schools who are buying a knighthood.

Clive would you not agree particularily in the context of a retraction of impassioned will in regard to the reform of the Lords and furthermore do you not agree that Blair's reign is proof positive that power corrupts and corrupts absolutly.

I have said this before but a governments unelectability occurs well before it is verifyed by votes in an election. The current whiff of the arogance of power under Blair has already marked the defeat to come. Tragically those who are 'loyal' under this government are themselves responsible for the rubbishing of true social democratic values which should mark the true inheritance of the Labour party and it is these people who place us in danger of being untrusted by the electorate for years and years to come.

But hey not to worry that is a few directorships down the road and the receipts of autobiographies that will inevitably rewrite history

Actually "Did not listen" transelates to "LA, LA, LA, I'm not listening because I'm right and everybody else is wrong (Tony's Signature Theme)"

If you are not aginst ID cards because of civil liberties or the price then surely you sould be against them because they will cause at minimum a civil uprising and maybe even civil war. If you think I am being a bit O.T.T. then think again, I am one of the people who would be on the front line.

P.S. Before you take the moral high ground, I have never in my entire life been even accused of violent behaviour let alone actually committed any crime however, on this issue, I am prepared to fight for my, and my childrens freedoms.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: