International Women’s Day
Lord Bach Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her excellent opening to this debate and I look forward to her remarks when she comes to winding it up. She and I have something in common which is very dear to us, and that is our home city, God’s own city, the city of Leicester, where she is held in extremely high regard. I am proud to be able to say that Emmeline Pankhurst, mentioned by the noble Baroness in her opening speech, was my great aunt. My grandmother, who was her younger sister, spent three weeks in Holloway jail for suffragette activity. I am equally proud of that fact, too. As all noble Lords will know, Emmeline Pankhurst had two powerful daughters, Christabel and Sylvia, both of whom, along with all the other suffragettes, did a massive amount to persuade—and I mean in almost every sense of that word—the powers-that-be, the Establishment of the day, that women should have the right to vote. Whether it was the First World War and the magnificent work done by women in the munitions factories that won the vote for women in the 1918 election, I leave to historians to decide, but the Pankhurst influence was clearly formidable.
Sometimes when listening to speeches in this House, I have to admit that my mind wanders just for a moment. I wonder how good it would have been if Mrs Pankhurst and her two daughters had somehow found themselves as Members of this House all those years ago. I daresay they would not have all sat on the same Benches, but that would have been no bad thing. Mrs Pankhurst’s husband, Dr Richard Pankhurst, was a brilliant radical Manchester lawyer who had strong views on absolutely everything, not least on the House of Lords. He believed that it should be abolished, and he described it as,
“the most preposterous institution in Europe”.
I do not know how preposterous it was then, and I hope he would not hold that view today; I do not accept it.
That leads me neatly on to say that although the House of Lords is not a preposterous institution, some of the legislative proposals that will severely affect women are preposterous in themselves and should be opposed for that reason. The legal aid Bill, which I am closely involved with, will decimate legal aid in the area of social welfare law in this country, and I argue that that will affect women in particular. To take benefits out of the scope of legal aid altogether, which is what is intended in the Bill, will affect women badly. Let us take the particular case of a single mother suffering from bipolar disorder, receiving employment and support allowance and other benefits. She has debts totalling £2,500, including overpayments of benefits and arrears owed to utility companies. The local advice and law service assisted her in making successful claims for disability living allowance and associated benefits, thus increasing her income by more than £100 a week. Her housing benefit had been suspended. The service challenged the decision and the benefit was reinstated and backdated, thus avoiding an escalation of rent arrears that ultimately would have led to the loss of her home.
That is one example, but thousands of others could be given of where, at the present time, a small amount of legal aid advice can help people, particularly women, to get out of the difficulties they are in. That advice will not be available in the same way or at all because there will not be any law centres or as many CABs if the Bill goes through. Many women will be badly affected by this legislation, and although of course we are today celebrating women and all that they do in our society, are we really going to pass a piece of legislation that will put women back rather than move them forward, as we all believe they should be?
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Lord Bach Excerpts(14 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach
My Lords, I can be very brief and start by saying how grateful the House should be to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for explaining this amendment so clearly. We support the amendment. It seems sensible; and it seems equally sensible for the Government, when a sensible amendment is put before them, to react favourably. It would cost them nothing to accept the amendment and would put right something that has been slightly wrong in this section of the 2003 Act. As the noble Lord said, this is a classic example of unintended consequences. His analysis of the law seems to us to be correct and it would be sensible for the Government to accept the amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for having sent a letter to all interested parties on 24 June, included in which is a part that addresses this particular issue. She argued that no formal consultation had taken place between the police and the Government although there had been some informal consultation. She suggested that the Government would not give way on this amendment but we will wait for the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, to answer for the Government. If the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, were minded to push this extremely sensible amendment to a vote, we would support it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, this amendment is near identical to one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, during Committee stage of this Bill, and to which we gave a fairly full response at the time, so I will be brief. We promised the noble Lord in my response at the time that we would give the matter further consideration. Having done so, I am afraid that the advice we have received is that we remain unconvinced that we want to make an amendment that would make it easier for a convicted offender to sue the police for damages until we hear good answers to the questions and issues that I mentioned in Committee and which I will not repeat here.
We have looked at this again and take the view that the previous Government also took when the issue was raised in 2009. The House should be very clear that Section 329 does not give the police carte blanche to use disproportionate force. They are still subject to the criminal law which permits only reasonable force. All that Section 329 does is raise the bar by making it more difficult for criminals to get financial benefit from situations where they were the ones committing an imprisonable offence. It is reasonable and fair to treat a person who holds the office of constable in the same way for these purposes as any other member of the public. We should not rush to the assumption that it is an unintended consequence for the police to enjoy the protection of Section 329. As I have suggested, the police will inevitably be the people most likely to be able to invoke Section 329, given that their job involves confronting people who are in the course of committing imprisonable offences. The text of Section 329 supports this since subsection (5) specifically extends the protection to people who believe their act was necessary to
“apprehend, or secure the conviction, of the claimant after he had committed an offence”.
I therefore remain unconvinced that an amendment to Section 329 of the 2003 Act in the way proposed by the noble Lord is the right way forward. I hope that after the reassurance that we have again considered this issue the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Lord Bach Excerpts(14 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 233A on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Reference has just been made to experts. I am not as expert as my noble friend, and I may get into trouble because I am not going to use all the briefing that he has given me.
Amendment 233A would exclude from Section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 a constable in the course of his duty. That section is what noble Lords might know as the Tony Martin defence. It was enacted in response to the case of Tony Martin, who shot two intruders in his home thinking they were attempting a burglary. It provides that the court must give permission for an offender to bring a civil suit for an assault committed at the time and in the circumstances that the offender committed the act for which he was convicted. It provides the defendant with a defence to such proceedings provided that his action was not grossly disproportionate. The defendant must believe the offender was about to commit an offence, was in the course of committing one or had committed one and that his actions were necessary to defend himself or someone else, to protect or recover property, to prevent or stop the offence or to catch and secure the conviction of the offender.
At the time that the section was being debated, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, said that the section,
“would strengthen the civil law to improve protection for victims of crime against civil claims for damages by offenders”.
She also said:
“It benefits third parties who are not the direct victim of the offence, but who may have intervened to protect the victim or deter the criminal”.—[Official Report, 11/11/03; cols. 1307-08.]
That was the only indication of the intended use of the section by those who are not direct victims of the crime.
In 2009, there was a case in the Court of Appeal: Anthony Adorian v The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. In his judgment, Lord Justice Sedley said:
“There is nothing on the face of the section or in its shoulder-note which manifests an intention to afford the police a novel protection from claims by offenders for objectively unreasonable or unnecessarily violent arrests”.
Only police defendants have invoked this section. Lord Justice Sedley went on to say:
“The consequences should not go unnoticed. In place of the principle painstakingly established in the course of two centuries and more, and fundamental to the civil rights enjoyed by the people of this country—that an arrest must be objectively justified and that no more force may be used in effecting it than is reasonably necessary—the section gives immunity from civil suits, not confined to those involving personal injury, to constables who make arrests on entirely unreasonable grounds, so long as they are not acting in bad faith, and accords them impunity for using all but grossly disproportionate force in so doing”.
In summary, Section 329 has only ever been used by the police, and my noble friend tells me that it has led to a mismatch between civil and criminal proceedings with no equality of arms between police and private individuals. The current position does not recognise that the police are public officers of the state endowed with special powers and that as a corollary they have special obligations that Section 329 allows them to circumvent. My noble friend says that ordinary people may be given some leeway for honest and instinct overreactions when protecting or defending themselves or another from a crime but, on the other hand, a police officer trained in the use of force must be required to justify his or her actions objectively and to use no more force than is reasonably necessary.
I had not appreciated until listening to the previous debate how neatly this followed on in some ways. My noble friend Lord Lester has tabled this amendment and as he is not able to be here this afternoon he asked me to move it.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on having picked up this point so well from her noble friend Lord Lester. I congratulate him too on putting down this amendment. I hope he will forgive me in his absence for describing him in this instance as a dog with a bone. He has come back to this issue today after first raising it following the judgment in the case that the noble Baroness referred to when the previous Government were in power. He did that in the course of a couple of Bills. At that stage Ministers, including me, I have to admit, had to tell the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that consultations would take place with the police.
There is undoubtedly a point here—the noble Baroness has described it very well. This particular section of the 2003 Act was clearly intended as some sort of response to the Martin case and the Act’s purpose was really intended, or so it said, for other citizens as opposed to the police. There is some sort of at least theoretical clash, as Lord Justice Sedley pointed out in the instant case, between the position of police officers and others on arrests, so it does require an answer from Government.
We said on 25 February 2010—it was me, I am afraid to say—that the consultation that we had said would take place had not taken place by that date. But of course the noble Baroness will know that her Government have now been in power for a good 13 months now—it is 15 or 16 months since I uttered those words—and I am quite sure this consultation will have taken place regardless of government. I therefore look forward to hearing her response to this small but quite important point about the 2003 Act. I presume the consultation has taken place and the Government will be able to tell us what they intend to do about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, it falls to me to answer this debate. I have to say that I am not fully briefed on whether or not the consultation has taken place. I suspect there was a little bit of irony there from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and his confidence that this will automatically take place regardless of changes in government, but I will write to him to inform him about how far it has got.
We are talking of course about Section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The intention was to benefit victims of crime, together with third parties who are not the direct victim of the offence but who may have intervened to protect the victim or deter the criminal. We are aware that it has so far been invoked only in respect of damages claims by police rather than by others who have sought to rely on the provisions as a defence in a number of cases. As noble Lords have mentioned, Lord Justice Sedley, in the case of Adorian v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, made a number of criticisms.
Section 329 of the 2003 Act is not a licence for the police to use disproportionate force as under the criminal law. The police can use only reasonable force. Neither does the section affect the criminal liability of householders, victims and others. Let us also keep in mind that the section applies only when the offender has been convicted of an imprisonable offence committed on the same occasion as the incident he is now suing for.
With these points in mind, this amendment raises a number of issues. First, is it fair and reasonable under general law to treat a person who holds the office of constable less advantageously than any other member of the public? Secondly, we should be very clear on what the practical consequences will be before making an amendment which would result in making it easier for a convicted offender to sue the police for damages. Thirdly, we need to be a little clearer on how this amendment might work, given that the powers of constables apply 24 hours a day, seven days a week. An off-duty constable who exercises this power to arrest a suspect found breaking into his own private dwelling or a neighbour’s dwelling would still be acting in the course of his or her duty. We also need to consider how the amendment would apply to special constables or others who are lawfully employed to prevent crime.
We note the thrust of the comments in the Adorian case and that the application of Section 329 to the police was not expressly discussed in Hansard at the time that that legislation was passing through Parliament. However, we are currently unconvinced that for the police to invoke Section 329 is really an unintended consequence of that section. Arguably, the police are the people most likely to rely on a provision which restricts liability towards a person who is committing a criminal offence at the time. The reference in Section 329(5)(b) to the defendant believing that his act was necessary to,
“apprehend, or secure the conviction, of the claimant after he had committed an offence”,
might suggest that it was not so very far from Parliament’s contemplation that the police could seek to invoke this provision. But what matters is whether it is right, fair and proportionate for this protection to apply to constables.
I am afraid that as yet we remain unconvinced that the provisions in Section 329 are not right, fair and proportionate in their application to the police. Therefore, we remain unconvinced that they require amendment as the noble Lord suggests. In particular, we cannot see any reason why the civil liability of a victim and a constable who act jointly on the same occasion, or act as individuals on separate occasions, to resist and detain the convicted offender should not be subject to the same threshold.
Nevertheless, as this amendment raises important issues relating to the role and powers of the police, and given that the noble Lord has been patiently pursuing this matter for some time, I can give the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on his behalf the assurance that this Government, while bearing in mind other government priorities, will take one final look at this matter before the next stage. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my noble friend may be a dog with a bone, but he is quite a pedigree sort of dog. Clearly, the noble Lord as an outgoing Minister did not leave a letter on his desk for his successor, so we have no amendments.
Baroness Hamwee
My noble friend has made a number of detailed points on the amendment, which I understand. I am prepared now to undergo a seminar by my noble friend when he has read Hansard but the important point is that the Government have acknowledged that this amendment is deserving of some thought. I am grateful for that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Identity Documents Bill
Lord Bach Excerpts(15 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Jones
The question of the cards and whether they would be valid after the election, and everything associated with it, was a continuous process. Certainly, a large number of people bought their cards fully aware of the fact that there was controversy about them. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, indicated at Second Reading, the House has always taken account of the content of manifestos, which is true today of the Opposition Benches.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the impact assessment.
Lord Bach
The noble Baroness quotes me correctly. Obviously, the House does take notice of manifestos, but there is nothing in the manifesto that says that those who had bought cards when they are abolished will not be paid anything. If the manifesto had said that, this might be a different argument. When I said that the House, of course, took note of what is in the manifesto, that is only stating the obvious. But it does not do anything to answer the point so well made by noble Lords in this Committee.
Baroness Neville-Jones
I quite appreciate what the noble Lord has just said. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the impact assessment, which simply set out the possibilities in a straight catalogue of options, which ranged from doing nothing through to the option chosen. Today, we are debating the option chosen by the Government.
“ID card trial for airside workers
(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on—
(a) the outcome of the trial use of ID cards for airside workers; and(b) the measures the Secretary of State proposes to implement arising from it.(2) Any ID card issued to an airside worker under the critical workers scheme, which is valid immediately before the day on which this Act is passed, shall continue to be valid until the report referred to in subsection (1) has been laid before Parliament.”
Lord Bach
My Lords, we turn to a new aspect of the Bill, perhaps an appropriate one at a time when security, particularly aviation security, is at the forefront of our minds. I declare a past interest: for a few months in 2007 I was chairman of the AOA, the Airport Operators Association, before returning to government. I am delighted to be able to move this probing amendment, and I will be interested to hear what the Government’s view is of the points that are made during the debate.
Airside workers fall into the category of those employed in sensitive roles and locations where identity is important to public protection. Effective identity assurance acts as the cornerstone of a good personnel security regime at airports and elsewhere. As part of the introduction of identity cards, as the Committee will know, an 18-month trial was developed at Manchester Airport and London City Airport whereby ID cards would be used in place of existing identity verification processes and documentation. We recognised that the ID card had a capacity, first, to provide a single means of identity assurance across airports and, secondly, to facilitate quicker and more efficient pre-employment checking, with obvious benefits to both employers and employees.
The ID card would have cut the frequency of the need to renew airside passes from every three years to every 10—thus, we argue, cutting bureaucracy and cost. The added identity certainty provided by the ID card offered benefits, we argue, including improving the portability of reference checks between employers and airports, creating greater flexibility for employers and staff; speeding up pre-employment clearances for cardholders moving from one airside job to another or between airports; kick-starting joint work to explore opportunities for streamlining airside pass regimes; and helping to ensure that everyone using airports was confident about their safety while there.
As we learn from reading the Public Bill Committee proceedings held in another place on 29 June, the process of getting an airport ID card used to take eight to 12 weeks from beginning to end. The introduction of the ID card scheme at Manchester Airport reduced this time to just one day for workers renewing their airport passes. The response from workers at Manchester Airport to the scheme was, not surprisingly, pretty positive. I draw the Committee’s attention to Question 66, asked by the honourable Mrs Hillier MP to Mr Mike Fazackerley, the customer services director at Manchester Airport. Mrs Hillier asked:
“You have gone through some of the evaluation. The Bill proposes repealing the scheme, but whether or not the card continues to exist in its current form, can you see the longer term benefits that there would have been, including security improvements, time and cost-saving, and greater convenience, had the pilot scheme been rolled out more widely and made available to others?”.
Mr Fazackerley, an expert witness, replied:
“I think that the principal benefits to airport workers are exactly as we have outlined: there is the ability to streamline and speed up, and to make the process of getting an airport pass easier. There were some marginal benefits; for example, we dramatically reduced the amount of data that we were holding on individuals, because we felt that we did not need data that the Government had, but I guess that that is fairly marginal”.—[Official Report, Commons, Identity Documents Bill Committee, 29/06/2010; col. 28.]
My honourable friend Mrs Hillier contradicted Mr Fazackerley to say that she did not think that was a marginal point—I agree with her—as regards reducing the amount of data held on individuals.
In addition to benefits in time saved and convenience, the Public Bill Committee heard from Mr Fazackerley of the ability to reduce the volume of data held on individuals on account of the introduction of the ID card scheme. The biometric material contained in the card could be relied upon, and much of the other information collected previously on those who applied for security passes could simply be disposed of.
The background to the pilot scheme was carefully worked out by the Department for Transport and developed with airports, the air industry and other interested bodies. They are all rightly eager to discover the benefits and lessons to be learnt from the trial in areas of good practice, cost and time saving, and improved security. In the six months that the scheme was allowed to run, we did see benefits, so why stop the scheme in its tracks now? Even if the Government are determined to scrap the card itself—that is obviously the case—the Minister and her colleagues could apply the lessons that would continue to be learnt from this trial to another identity document—possibly the passport—or simply use them to streamline the onerous and time-consuming security checking processes at airports. They could share the information with other airports and perhaps other industries, such as the nuclear industry where such protection is vital and speed of checking is important.
At Question 74, Mrs Hillier said to Mr Fazackerley that,
“you mentioned that you would like to see some of the benefits of the evaluation continue, although the evaluation only got to a certain point. Would you like to keep that going and see the full benefits, perhaps in an attempt to reignite such uses, even with another document?”.
He replied:
“Very much so. If we could leave with the same benefits, perhaps through use of the passport, that would be a very positive move”.—[Official Report, Commons, Identity Documents Bill Committee, 29/06/2010; col. 30.]
If the Minister decides not to accept what we think is a sound amendment, will she help us with the plans that the Government have to reform security processes with regard to airside personnel at UK airports? As recent events have shown, the issue of airport security is far from going away. In many ways, it has been a central issue of the past few days. As the noble Baroness has just said in the Chamber, the Government will be addressing it with great concern.
The trial was a good idea. From this side of the Committee, we argue that it should be allowed to continue in order to allow all the lessons that can be learnt enough time to reveal themselves for the benefit and safety of all.
The Countess of Mar
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, kept saying that the airside ID cards would help to prevent what has happened in the past few days. Is he really suggesting that? It was not people who were involved; it was parcels. Does every parcel have to have an ID card? I cannot see how having an ID card would have prevented what has been happening in the past few days with parcels.
Lord Bach
I am grateful to the noble Countess for asking that question. I have tried to be extremely careful. Of course, I am absolutely not saying that. But security at airports—airside and the other side— is obviously a crucial issue. In this limited scheme of six months, it seemed as though the airside part of it was convenient for employers and employees from various companies who worked that side. I would also argue that there were some security conveniences as well. But, of course, recent events—as far as we know today, which I accept—are nothing at all to do with ID cards.
Baroness Hamwee
It is important to mention that the noble Lord has just used the word “convenient”. I am sure that he would like to confirm to the Grand Committee that he is not suggesting that there would be any detriment to security by losing this scheme.
Lord Bach
I think that there might be some advantages for security in this scheme, and I would like to know the Government’s view on that. From the exchanges I have been reading from, it seems that there may well have been some advantages so far as security is concerned. Indeed, I am reminded that Mr Fazackerley was asked a question by the honourable David Simpson:
“On a point of clarification, Mr Green asked Mike—
I presume that is Mr Fazackerley. I do not think that we would call an expert witness by their Christian name in this House, but perhaps I am being old-fashioned—
“a question about the fact that it takes eight to 12 weeks to carry out the security side of the process, but if a card is lost or misplaced, it can be replaced within 24 hours. Did you say that no further security checks were carried out?”.
Mr Fazackerley answered by saying:
“At that point. The benefit that we got from the system was that you were absolutely sure that the person who was standing in the pass office was the right person”. —[Official Report, Commons Public Bill Committee, 29/6/10; col. 28.]
Whether what he said about the issue goes to the question of security or not is a matter for the Committee to decide.
Lord Brett
My Lords, when I was involved in this, it seemed potentially to be a win-win situation. We have heard from my noble friend about the impact on airports and their ability to clear people airside for security purposes in a much shorter period. We know also that there was initial resistance from the staff, not to the detail but to the fact that the system was being made compulsory. It was only when the potential of what the system was about that the hesitation, to put it mildly, expressed by the staff turned into at least into an enthusiasm to investigate without necessarily committing to the results.
The third area is that of the airlines. The experiment was being carried out at Manchester and at London City airports, although any two airports could have been chosen. Carriers flying in and out of those airports do not have resident senior technical staff. They may have a contractor with airside passes who provides the general maintenance of an aircraft, perhaps unblocking a sensor or putting right a temperature gauge. If a more serious technical problem arises, engineers have to be brought in either from a repair facility or the headquarters of the airline involved. Those people will arrive at the airport with no airside security clearance whatever, but they cannot be allowed just to wander in and repair the aircraft. Therefore, another period of delay is built into the clearance of those individuals. However, with the provision of an identity card and the security it offered, this was another area in which a considerable advantage would have been gained for the airline industry, for passengers who could be delayed, and by making a saving in costs to airports themselves. Aircraft sitting like parked vehicles is not an advantage. At the start of the experiment, these were things that were seen to be potential advantages, so in a sense it is sad that we will not see the outcome unless the costs are exorbitant.
Let us look at the costs of aviation. A 747-400 airliner costs well in advance of £100 million, and even more modest aircraft cost tremendous sums. The daily cost of keeping an aircraft inactive is also very high. At the moment, the airline industry feels slightly battered by the costs that have been imposed by government, and this is an area where we could have formed a degree of coalition, if I may use the word, between the interests of airports, staff, passengers—we are the victims when aircraft are delayed—and the airlines themselves. I am sorry if the experiment will not be completed because there are powerful arguments for why it should be done. If not, how are we going to provide an equivalent over the coming period because, as sadly we have heard today, the problems associated with airport security are not going to go away?
Lord Bach
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate: my noble friend Lord Brett, with his expert knowledge of systems at airports; the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for the points that he made; and, of course, the Minister, for her response. This proposal does not depend on whether it, in the end, improves airport security or not. We certainly think that it cannot do any harm, to put it at its mildest, and probably has some positive effects. Obviously, on its own, an ID card system of this kind is nowhere near enough; of course there has to be continued checking, as the noble Baroness said in her response. We accept all that. I am not sure that her point about a philosophical difference between the two sides carries very much water. We are arguing that you can put security on one side, if you want, for the moment; we are talking about an attempt to save hard-pressed businesses costs and a degree of effort that they do not otherwise have to use. This is a very important industry for this country, and if anything can help to save legitimate costs, expenditure and time, I would argue that it is the duty of government to look carefully at it.
What is Amendment 5 intended to do? It states that the trial should continue for a longer period and that, at the end of it, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on,
“the outcome of the trial use of ID cards for airside workers”,
and,
“the measures the Secretary of State proposes to implement arising from it”.
It obviously does not find favour with the Government, but I would be interested to know what they intend to do with the information that has been gleaned from the six months of the trial. As the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said, no doubt there were some benefits to be gained and it would be useful for the future to know what they might be.
I find it difficult to understand how that could possibly cost £100,000, bearing in mind that the cards have already been given out free. What would be the costs of carrying on the trial? I find that hard to understand.
Baroness Hamwee
As the noble Lord said, there may be lessons to be learnt, and I, too, should be interested to know them. He described what the new clause does. I think that I am right to say that, implicitly, it requires the continuance of the register until the end of the process described here. It seems to me that that must follow. The noble Lord has not referred to it, but the two go so closely hand in hand that I assume that that is the case. Perhaps he could confirm that or correct me.
Lord Bach
I am not sure whether the register would have to continue or not. The data would continue to be collected and we would see at the end of the period whether the trial had made life easier and more secure for those who have to run our airports. I take the noble Baroness's point; I know that it is an essential part of the Government's case that the register should be closed at the earliest possible moment. I suggest that the effect of having an identity card as passport might be to make it possible to get the information that would be of assistance.
I see that the Government are not attracted by the wording of the amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Identity Documents Bill
Lord Bach Excerpts(15 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the Government’s Bill so clearly and concisely for us this afternoon. We are very grateful to her. It is perhaps slightly ironic that we should be debating the Bill at the start of National Identity Fraud Prevention Week. ID fraud is, as the noble Baroness will know, one of the UK’s fastest-growing crimes, with nearly 2 million people a year falling victim to it, costing the country some £2.7 billion.
While in government, my party, as the House knows, introduced a system of voluntary identity cards. The identity card scheme was envisaged as a convenient, secure and affordable way of asserting one’s identity in everyday life. The card was a tool of empowerment—a way to give citizens some ownership of and control over their data. The card was affordable to nearly everyone, far more affordable than a passport. It was about protecting your identity and accessing your services. Indeed, in introducing consultation on ID cards in 2002, the then Home Secretary, the right honourable David Blunkett, described these documents as “entitlement cards” which would ensure that those who have a right to use our public services are the only ones to do so. The ID card functioned as a valid travel document throughout Europe, a way to demonstrate eligibility to work, and a proof of age for young people or those without a driving licence. It also added some protection against identity fraud—a crime which, as I say, costs a great deal of money each year.
Yes, we believe that the ID cards enhanced security. Their existence made illegal immigration and trafficking that bit harder. The Police Federation of England and Wales has long supported the scheme. It said:
“The Police Federation has backed an identity card scheme for over a decade, not as a knee-jerk reaction to any one specific or emotive event, but following objective appraisal. Unfortunately, all too often the case for identity cards is not pushed hard enough for fear that their introduction would be seen as infringement of peoples’ civil liberties. However carrying identity cards brings benefits to us all. If an individual is stopped by the police, they would be able to confirm their identity instantly; the result of which is that they would not have to report to a police station—a lengthy process that would amount”,
so the Police Federation argued,
“to a far greater infringement of their liberty”.
In an age when security is paramount, ID cards can help to protect us all. The existence of the national identity register provided the security services with a verifiable and authenticable database to contribute to their role in safeguarding the public. It was in making the obtaining of multiple identities harder that we believe the ID card scheme offered an obstacle in the way of would-be terrorists. I pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, who said in 2001:
“Britain is the easiest country in Western Europe in which criminals and terrorists can lose themselves. If we are serious about tackling this problem, there is one obvious remedy—identity cards”.
That is no doubt why, under his leadership, the party opposite—which now makes up the Government—voted in favour of the Labour Government’s first Bill on this matter in 2004, and why it supported it in the 2005 general election campaign.
Having said all that, I wish to make a concession, which has also been made in the other place. However much these Benches may have supported the introduction of ID cards, we cannot deny this Government’s mandate to abandon the measure now. It was one of the precious few proposals that appeared in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos. Therefore, we absolutely recognise the right of the Government to pass this Bill. However, that is not to say that we do not think there are considerable problems with the Bill before the House today. I shall raise some concerns and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath will raise others.
We believe that the 15,000-odd ID cards already in use should continue as a legitimate form of identity until their expiry date. We argue that it is unfair, because of a change in government policy, to penalise people who have spent money on these cards. In the other place, as justification for their refusal to compensate card holders, the Government repeatedly deployed the argument—which was used again by the noble Baroness this afternoon, slightly unconvincingly, if I may say so with great respect—that:
“People knew well before the election what would happen if a Conservative Government were elected”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/10; col. 346.]
Am I alone in thinking that that argument is shocking in its arrogance and deep unfairness? The Government demonstrate a mean-spiritedness on this issue in not attaching a money resolution to the Bill. As a result we will not be able to move an amendment to call for refunds for card holders. Such a refund would cost less than £400,000 to deliver. In the context of the wider costs of scrapping the scheme—the Government have claimed that it will cost £5 million this year to implement the Bill—that is a comparatively small amount.
Furthermore, in refusing to offer compensation the Government really are riding roughshod over consumer protection law. We on these Benches agree with comments made in the other place that the Government's attitude to the cancellation of the ID card scheme is symbolic of their lack of regard for ordinary taxpayers—many of those affected are elderly and some are not the richest in society—who in good faith have spent money on purchasing the card. Not to compensate them seems to us a pretty cold-hearted approach. We shall certainly bring this matter back in Committee.
If the Government will not offer card holders a refund, we suggest that a credit of £30 should be attached to card holders’ next purchase of a passport. It seems plain to us that existing cards should remain valid until they expire. We would be grateful to hear the noble Baroness’s view on this. If the Government are not open to this argument, we would like to know what they have to say to the often older and poorer members of the public who took up the opportunity to purchase an ID card under an Act of Parliament. They will be inconvenienced and out of pocket if the Bill is passed as it stands.
We have doubts about the need to destroy the data held on the national identity register. We are committed to the security of the British passport and consider that data held on the NIR, especially the biometric information, is valuable in achieving this end. As the noble Baroness said just now, the Government have announced that they are halting the second generation of biometric passports. However, in scrapping the data already held and the infrastructure which has built up around the national identity register, it seems that the Government’s real intention is to scrap proposed second generation passports altogether. We disagree with that approach, which risks leaving Britain out of step not only with the rest of Europe but with other countries as well.
The Prime Minister himself has previously argued that there is clearly a need for biometrics on passports. I remind the House that following the British-Israel row over the use of fake British passports in the killing of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai, the right honourable William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, acknowledged the value of biometrics. Biometric passports and the register represent important contributions to the integrity of the UK's system of identity. The Bill will undermine this. With the permission of the individuals involved, data on the NIR should be transferred to the Identity and Passport Service.
There are other arguments. We are concerned that the scrapping of the scheme will not allow us to learn from the experience of issuing cards to airside workers at UK airports. There are potential lessons in enhanced security which could have been applied to other areas, but now we will never know.
There are equality concerns. The ID card was the only form of identity proof that could be issued to transgendered people in both their birth gender and acquired gender, thereby making it much easier for them to prove their identity without fear or embarrassment. Transgendered people were not included in the Bill’s equality impact assessment, and there has been no consultation whatever.
As Liberty said in a press statement on 27 May 2010 and in its contribution to this debate, it is inequitable to maintain ID cards for foreign nationals while scrapping those for everyone else, as the Bill will do. We also have arguments with the Government about the costs involved. My noble friend will address that issue.
Before I conclude I remind the noble Baroness that, in a former life, not long before she came to prominence on the opposition Benches, and now on the government Benches, she said something which I suspect she thought she might be reminded of during the course of this debate:
“If you’re not going to have ID cards you have to find other ways of protecting identity and I don’t know how you do”.
Why has the noble Baroness changed her mind?