Identity Cards Bill

The Home Secretary has rejected amendments Nos. 22G and 22H from the other place, claiming, if I understand correctly, that they are not serious compromises. I wonder why that is, because any cool and objective assessment of the amendments would suggest that they are very serious compromises indeed. Let me highlight three reasons for that. First, the amendments are a major concession of principle from those who objected to identity cards and their compulsory introduction, because opponents accept for the first time that they will become compulsory, but according to a deferred timetable. That has been a painful and difficult decision for those who have a long track record of opposing the Bill out of principle. The Home Secretary’s dismissal of the seriousness of that concession does not do justice to their deliberations. Secondly, it is simply implausible to suggest that the amendments would cause huge practical problems. All that they suggest is a deferral from 2009, which would be the first full year of operation of the ID card scheme, to the end of 2011, 18 to 24 months later. Nothing that we have heard today suggests that that shift of a few months poses enormous complexities and practical problems for the Government. Thirdly, I should have thought that, from the Government’s point of view, these compromise amendments would be a good deal better than some of the other compromise amendments that are doing the rounds. During the debate in the other place, Lord Armstrong referred explicitly to the possibility that, when the Bill returned there, he would table amendments inserting a complete opt-out for those who do not want to subscribe to the identity card scheme at all. That would blow a hole in the Bill that would surely be much more serious for the Government than these measured amendments. They represent a major compromise, undertaken in a spirit of careful deliberation over where the two sides may meet on this difficult issue. They are practical, they will not lead to insuperable obstacles, and they are certainly better than the alternatives that may now be debated in the other place. The Home Secretary said that the amendments would introduce uncertainty, delay and extra costs. I do not see what is uncertain about a date, 31 December 2011. That seems to me very certain and very precise. The date is a little further away than what is envisaged in the much vaguer timetable that the Government appear to have in mind, but there is nothing uncertain about it. Yes, it involves a delay, but a modest delay that has been mooted with the aim of securing a reasonable compromise. As for the costs, it is impossible to test the assertion that the amendments would lead to extra costs, because the scheme has not been properly costed by the Government and we have not yet been given a detailed account of what the costs would cover. The costs that have been floated have been summarily rejected and called into question by independent analysts, not least in the London School of Economics, which recently suggested that in its first 10 years of operation the scheme would run up a whopping £1.8 billion deficit.