Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Peyton of Yeovil (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 16 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Identity Cards Bill.


Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I well understand the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Soley, to restrict the debate as far as possible. He brought out his referee’s whistle to blow it at other people. I hope that he will accept that there is widespread anxiety in the House about the lack of information. If the Government had given some accurate information about the likely costs, the debate might have ranged more narrowly. I thought that every word spoken by my noble friend, whom I congratulate, was perfectly justified, as was all that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I have a limited number of points. First, I was moved by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wright, and his obviously painful memory of having been chastised by the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, in the past. I shall add nothing to that, save the rather vain hope—most hopes at my age are rather vain—of longing for the day when his opposite number at present in the Home Office will suffer an equally severe and painful flagellation, which will be attended by the same awful memories that he shared with us today. There are widely different estimates. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is quite right to say that it is no good talking about estimates and throwing them at the Comptroller and Auditor General. We need costs. If we have no reliable figures we must make do with the bone we have. The noble Baroness performs with skill, calm and grace. What a pity that her colleagues, who framed these policies, do nothing to deserve the performance that she puts up on the Front Bench. I do not wish to embarrass her with too many congratulations, but she is an example to her colleagues and I wish only that she had more success in persuading them to see sense. Alas, she does not. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Soley, will not be too vexed if I repeat this, but we are dealing with a very comprehensive system of surveillance. Many of us do not like it, and the idea that the Government should get a blank cheque from us to pay for it is odious. In passing, I also echo a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, about freedom of information. I hardly know what to say about it. So far as I understand it, in modern parlance freedom of information means that the Government shall have access to all the information that they require, but on the other hand, when it does not suit them and when it is administratively inconvenient or impossible to give the information, it is not a matter that is going to bother the present Administration at all. I worry about the Bill. It is a thoroughly bad measure. The Government should have shown the necessary respect for the parliamentary institution, been aware that this information would be most earnestly required and that their ““we can’t do better than we have”” attitude was not good enough. I shall have no qualms about supporting this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, refers to playing party politics, but it is part of the government party against the rest.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c442-3 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Access Disclosure of information Data protection Biometrics Age Costs Fraud Fees and charges ICT Identity cards Investment Interviews Police Personation Procurement National identity register Proof of identity Passports Registration Young people Security
Legislation
Identity Cards Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk