Identity Documents Bill

My Lords, first, I apologise to the House for intervening rather too early in proceedings. I have listened very carefully to the Minister but, although she says that she has listened, she appears surprisingly unsympathetic to the thousands of people affected. What really worries me is that she is completely oblivious to the precedent that is being set. At Second Reading, she said that, "““those who chose to buy a card did so in the full knowledge of the unambiguous statements by the coalition parties that the scheme would be scrapped if we came to office. They cannot now expect taxpayers to bail them out””." She went on to say that, "““citizens have to be aware of what is going on around them. It was clear that this scheme would have a risky future ahead of it””.—[Official Report, 18/10/10; col. 715.]" She dismissed the potential refund of £30 as, "““rather less than probably most people pay for a monthly subscription to Sky””.—[Official Report, 18/10/10; col. 742.]" On Report, the argument had advanced. The noble Baroness said: "““We do not believe that the statutory basis of the issue of ID cards creates a contract or anything akin to a contract in relations between the Secretary of State and the cardholder. Remedies that would be available in the courts if the contract were governed by the law of contract or consumer legislation … is not available for identity cards””.—[Official Report, 17/11/10; col. 792.]" Today, we hear this argument about the socioeconomic background of holders of the card. What on earth has that got to do with it? This is a matter of principle. Let us just think about the wider principle, not just in relation to ID cards and the sum of £30. For example, an incoming Government say that because they disagreed with the original policy of a previous Government, it is just tough luck on members of the public who decided to act on the provision that became available as a result of the actions of the previous Government. Does the Minister not see that, in refusing to refund the £30, she is developing a new principle that will essentially reduce trust in Governments generally? What policies might this apply to in the future? If we were to accept the logic of the noble Baroness’s argument, it would be open to an opposition party to say, ““We don’t agree to a policy being brought in by the current Government””. If, subsequently, that opposition party came into Government, they could simply rescind the policy and refuse to pay any compensation if that policy had involved an outlay of money by members of the public. That is simply not the right way to treat people in this country. For instance, that was not the way in which the previous Government dealt with the assisted places scheme. We abolished that scheme but we allowed children in receipt of an assisted place to complete the remainder of that phase of their education. It is no wonder that on Report the noble Baroness’s noble friend Lord Vinson described the Government’s position as ““morally indefensible””. What is her response to my noble friend Lord Richard who pointed out that, "““identity cards were not sold on the basis of, ‘You are buying it from a Labour Government, but if another one come in, things may change and you may have to renegotiate it’””? —[Official Report, 17/11/10; col. 789.]" What does she say to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, who thought that the Government were guilty of mis-selling? As he said, "““If you expect a member of the public, seven months ahead of the general election, to be able to predict its outcome, there are a lot of geniuses among the public whom we ought immediately to recruit to become pollsters””.—[Official Report, 17/11/10; col. 787.]" Has she taken on board the comments made by her noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury? On Report, he said: "““Governments must set an example of the standards they expect of private industry. Had private industry engaged in a tactic of this sort, noble Lords on all the Benches would have been up in arms, and rightly so””.—[Official Report, 17/11/10; col. 785.]" On Report, the noble Baroness said that she would look at the matter again. The defeat of the Government after her comments required no less. I would ask her what form her further consideration took. Will she say why the Government are not taking on board the views of this House? She cannot simply hide behind financial privilege. She also said on Report that she would seek advice on whether the Government risked legal challenge from the holders of ID cards since the Government are essentially confiscating cards without compensation. She was asked by the noble and learned Lord Morris of Aberavon to confirm that the advice she received came from the law officers. Will she inform the House whether the law officers gave such advice? Finally, I appeal to the noble Baroness to consider the matter again. The Government are setting an extraordinary and dangerous precedent by not paying compensation. Such a precedent goes much wider than ID cards and would be very unfortunate as regards trust in government. She should think again.