Identity cards 20 years on: 2005 Lords bill second reading debate

Approximate read time: 10 minutes

The House of Lords considered the Identity Cards Bill^[1] at second reading on 31 October 2005.^[2] The bill had been reintroduced following a previous bill^[3] falling because of the May 2005 general election. Baroness Scotland of Asthal, minister of state at the Home Office, opened the debate. She reminded the House the bill had been subject to a six-month consultation in 2002. A government statement followed in November 2003.^[4] The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee had provided pre-legislative scrutiny to a draft bill in 2004.^[5]

1. “Necessary in the wider public interest”

Baroness Scotland explained the bill’s purpose was to provide a “clear legislative framework” for the introduction of identity cards for everyone aged 16 and over resident in the UK. Baroness Scotland said “first and foremost” the scheme would supply individuals with a “convenient method of proving their identity”. She argued that existing means of identification were “not secure or reliable enough”. She added the proposed biometrics scheme would link an individual to their single, unique identity, which would be held on a “highly secure national identity register”. Baroness Scotland said there was public support for identity cards, with Home Office research showing 73% of the public supported their introduction.^[6]

The minister went on to explain the five reasons the scheme was “necessary in the wider public interest”.^[7] First was national security. Baroness Scotland said the government believed identity cards would “disrupt the activities of those who aid and abet terrorism by hiding behind multiple and false identities”. Second was the prevention and detection of crime. The bill, she stressed, would “not alter the relationship between the public and the police” and safeguards were built into the proposals. Third was the enforcement of immigration controls. Baroness Scotland explained that most people would be entered onto the register when they applied for a designated document, which would include British passports. Passport applicants would therefore receive both a passport and an identity card. Likewise, residence document applicants would receive an identity card. The minister said this would “act as a major deterrent to illegal immigration”. Fourth was illegal employment. The government’s proposed identity card would, Baroness Scotland said, make it “very much easier for employers to ensure that they comply with the law”. The fifth reason was the efficient and effective provision of public services. The bill proposed regulation-making powers to introduce a requirement for the production of an identity card before an individual could access a public service. Baroness Scotland said this would not interfere with emergency healthcare or other services until it became compulsory to register and hold the card.

Baroness Scotland explained current plans were for the first identity cards to be issued in 2008, alongside passports. The government estimated the cost of the combined passport and identity card for an individual would be £93.^[8] On the subject of compulsion, she told the House that the bill required the government to explain any proposed change. Any order laid for approval would require the super-affirmative process. Baroness Scotland also acknowledged the bill’s delegated powers, saying it was enabling legislation that could not be expected to contain all the detail.^[9]

2. “Huge financial and constitutional implications”

Baroness Anelay of St Johns responded for the opposition.^[10] She cautioned the need for “proportionality”.^[11] She argued the bill as drafted meant it would in effect be compulsory to register, despite being proposed as a voluntary scheme. She pointed to passport renewals, whereby she said the government would “force” people to enter their details on the ID card register even if they had decided they did not want a card. Baroness Anelay also said it was “unacceptable” the government proposed the super-affirmative process for transitioning from a voluntary to compulsory scheme. She believed that primary legislation, as recommended by the House of Lords Constitution Committee, was more appropriate.^[12] Baroness Anelay went on to reiterate the five tests for the bill her party had set out in the Commons.^[13] These were its clarity of purpose, the required technology and capabilities, the government’s competence to the run the system, the scheme’s cost effectiveness, and the civil liberties implications. Baroness Anelay concluded that any project of “such huge financial and constitutional implications needs to be justified clearly, as a proportionate and effective response to social need”.^[14]

Lord Phillips of Sudbury said the Liberal Democrats opposed the bill.^[15] He said while “ID cards look impeccable in theory” he believed “the claims made for them usually do not withstand critical scrutiny”.^[16] He thought the bill was “dauntingly complicated and impenetrable”. He also doubted the state’s capacity “to undertake the phenomenally complicated and sensitive task of establishing a national register without cock-up, incompetence or subversion”.^[17] He said identity cards represented a “serious intrusion into privacy”. He expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of identity cards in fighting terrorism, illegal working and fraud and abuse of public services.^[18]

3. “Overwhelming case”

Former metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (Crossbench) spoke about identity theft and terrorism. He said the police and security services were certain about the need for identity cards. He felt there was an “overwhelming case” for identity cards.^[19] Lord Soley (Labour), in his maiden speech, thought “the ID Bill was bound to come” saying it was “very difficult to argue that modern democracies do not need such legislation”.^[20] The Bishop of Oxford (now Lord Harries of Pentregarth) said whilst he respected and valued privacy he could not “bring myself to oppose identity cards in principle”.^[21] In also supporting the bill, Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Labour) referred to her experiences living in Finland and Sweden, both of which had identity cards and national identity numbers.^[22] Baroness Henig (Labour) felt an identity card would be useful to the public and help make them feel more secure.^[23] Lord Giddens (Labour) argued an identity card scheme could make “greater” the substantive freedoms and social protection individuals expected from the state.^[24]

In his contribution, Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour) urged peers to focus on the bill and not “what ifs”.^[25] He said he supported the bill, which would provide a “substantive advantage to us as individuals”. Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour) said he was a long-standing supporter of identity cards. He explained his personal experience in Paris in the 1960s demonstrated to him that an identity card was “a very effective defence against the excesses” of the state.^[26] He noted the bill was a manifesto commitment, that the public supported identity cards and said they would generate “huge” benefits.^[27] Lord Dubs (Labour) said he supported the principles of the bill. He contested claims identity cards would alter the relationship between the individual and the state. He argued “that altered significantly many years ago”.^[28] He shared the belief that benefits would follow from identity cards. He did have some concerns, including the card’s monetary cost to individuals and whether such a large IT scheme would work.^[29] Lord Gould of Brookwood (Labour) argued the world had changed, that the public supported identity cards and that the cards represented “for most people not control of identity but affirmation”.^[30] Lord Marlesford (Conservative) said he also supported a national identity register but did not support the way the bill proposed to achieve its purposes.^[31]

Lord Holme of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat) spoke as chair of the Constitution Committee. He said the bill required three safeguards.^[32] First, primary legislation was needed to make the scheme compulsory. Second, an independent body should be established to oversee the register. Third, an independent commissioner, with the power to investigate complaints, was also required.

4. “Deeply anxious”

Opposing the bill, former home secretary Lord Waddington (Conservative) referred to historical abuses of power by the police.^[33] He also criticised the government for proposing secondary, rather than primary, legislation to move from a voluntary to compulsory scheme. He added that whilst he could not argue that no national identification scheme could ever be justified, he felt that the government had not made a strong case.^[34] Baroness Carnegy of Lour (Conservative) said the bill made her “deeply anxious”.^[35] She felt it needed “enormous care and many safeguards” not yet in the bill.^[36] Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat) was concerned about the unknown “malign intentions” of future governments.^[37] He was also worried about the register’s accuracy. He described the purported benefits the government claimed for identity cards as “rubbish”.^[38] The Earl of Northesk (Conservative) expressed “deep misgivings” on the grounds of “principle and practicality”. These concerned the technology’s viability and how identity cards would alter the relationship between the individual and the state.^[39] Former attorney-general Lord Mayhew of Twysden (Conservative) said given police support for the bill that on balance the bill “just” merited a second reading. However, the bill was “virtually a skeletal enabling bill” and its detail mattered.^[40] Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws (Labour) spoke to oppose identity cards.^[41] She said the proposed register should cause “considerable alarm” because the “joining-up of databases creates such an affront to liberty”.^[42]

5. “The technology can work”

Winding up for the Liberal Democrats, Lord Dholakia said by his count there had been an equal number of members for and against the bill. He offered three reasons why his party opposed the bill. First because it altered the relationship between the individual and the state. Second because identity cards would impinge on the rights and liberties “we have enjoyed since the days of Magna Carta”. Third because the bill would not address the national security, terrorism or benefit and health fraud risks the government suggested.^[43] Baroness Seccombe, speaking for the opposition, referred to concerns raised by several members. She concluded by asking the minister to explain “what actually is the purpose of it all? Why this? Why now?”. She added that the bill’s purpose “should be the first thing we get to probe in committee”.^[44]

Baroness Scotland responded to some of points raised in the debate. She said, by her count, 22 members supported the bill, some with questions about “the issues on control”.^[45] She said the government recognised the technological challenges in implementing the scheme.^[46] Baroness Scotland said committee stage offered the House the chance to go through such details.^[47] On the technology, the minister explained “key sections of the industry are telling us that the technology can work”. About the process for making identity cards compulsory, she noted “the House could amend any proposal for compulsion, and must then vote to approve any resulting order before it can come into force”.^[48] In response to points raised about international comparisons, Baroness Scotland insisted that “most other countries have a means of recording” identity information. Whilst “they may call it something different […] they each have the means of running a database”.^[49]

The bill received its second reading. Following six days in committee, three on report and third reading, the bill received royal assent on 30 March 2006, after several rounds of ping-pong between the two Houses. The bill’s 11 rounds of ping-pong remains the highest number of rounds on any bill since at least the mid-1970s. The coalition government would go onto repeal the Identity Cards Act 2006^[50] through the Identity Documents Act in 2010.^[51] At the time of its repeal, there were about 13,200 identity cardholders in the UK, “from a base of just over 2 million to whom the card was strongly advertised over a reasonable period (residents of Greater Manchester, IPS employees and airside workers at Manchester and London City airports)”.^[52]

The online version of Hansard is currently unavailable for 31 October 2005.

---

Image by Home Office/PA on Wikimedia Commons.