As the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party in the Lords girds its loins for battle…

…we should, perhaps, say goodbye and thank you to five of our Peers who have retired from the House of Lords in the past month under the terms of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. In order of their declaration of retirement;

Lord (Colin) Sharman retired with effect from 30 April. A former Chairman of the ‘Big 4’ accountancy firm KPMG, he wasn’t terribly active in the House in recent years, but could be relied upon for critical votes.

Lord (Andrew) Phillips of Sudbury retired (again) with effect from 7 May. I say ‘again’ because he took leave of absence in 2006, intending never to return, but clearly realised that his annoyance at both Labour and Conservative efforts to reduce our civil liberties was good enough cause to return. Brave enough to disagree with even Paddy Ashdown on the floor of the House, Andrew spoke strongly against cuts to the legal aid budget and ID cards, and was an expert on charities and the law. Outside the chamber, he was probably most renowned for being Jimmy Young’s ‘Legal Eagle’ for more than a quarter of a century. Personally, I’ll miss him, although, as a near neighbour, I’m hoping that he won’t be a stranger.

Lord (Michael) Sandberg retired with effect from 8 May. A former Chairman of HSBC, he added business acumen to the Parliamentary Party although, again, he was relatively inactive in recent years. Given that he is 87, that might well be excusable…

Lord (William) Goodhart retired with effect from 15 May. One of the original SDP grandees, he fought Kensington in the 1983 and 1987 General Elections, as well as in the 1988 by-election, and Oxford West and Abingdon in 1992, when he got within 3,500 votes of victory. He went on to hold a number of frontbench positions in the Lords, including that of Shadow Lord Chancellor.

And finally, Lord (John) Roper retired with effect from 23 May. A former Labour MP who defected to the SDP in 1991, he served as our Chief Whip in the Lords until 2005, before going on to be Principal Deputy Chairman and thus Chair of the House of Lords European Union Committee, in 2008. In recent years, he was a regular attender at ALDE Congresses, where his knowledge of how Europe works was very impressive, even if his skills were underused. In a situation where opinion is not necessarily supported by knowledge, his modesty regarding his own knowledge meant that it wasn’t utilised by our delegations to its best effect.

I am confident, however, that as far as is possible, they will not be lost to public life altogether. We should be grateful that they contributed as they did to both the Party and to Parliament.

Next week in the Lords: 24-28 February

I used to write a column for Liberal Democrat Voice looking forward to the week's events in the House of Lords. As far as I could tell, hardly anyone ever read it, and I was, admittedly, a bit erratic in terms of writing it every week. And so, with a somewhat smaller, but perhaps more perfectly formed and courteous audience here, I'm going to give it another go. This time, it might be a bit more personal, however...

I'm sure that Ros is in there somewhere...

Monday sees an oral question dear to my heart, as Baroness Deech continues her campaign to get her husband a courtesy title gain gender equality over courtesy titles. Whilst I really can't see me using one, it does seem odd that, in an age where women have achieved technical equality in most spheres of modern life, and where same sex couples are able to marry, that such an obvious anomaly has been overlooked.

Perhaps more important, however, is the first day of the Report stage of the Pensions Bill, when suggested changes covering state pension credit and bereavement support payments are likely to be discussed. They will also discuss a proposal for a pension scheme charge cap. In Grand Committee, the Regulations increasing penalties for failure to apply the National Minimum Wage are up for debate and, hopefully approval. I, for one, take a dim view on allowing employers to effectively require the state to mitigate low pay, and would like to see action on this.

On Tuesday, the Communications Committee takes evidence from, amongst others, Janet Brown, Executive Director of the Commission on Presidential Debates, as it looks at broadcast General Election debates. I'd like to see Nigel Farage be included next year, as well as the leaders of the Scottish Nationalists and Plaid Cymru in their national debates, even if it is unlikely that UKIP will win many seats.

In the main chamber, a number of relatively minor Bills, including the Deep Sea Mining and International Development (Gender Equality) Bills have their Committee Stages, whilst Christine Humphreys has what I believe to be her first oral question, regarding the implementation of recent Ofsted recommendations on careers advice in schools, and Paul Tyler wants to know what steps local communities might take where their local authority doesn't have an up-to-date local plan.

I'm pleased to see that, on Wednesday, Mike Storey has a question on support given to young people living in rural areas to enable them to travel to school or college. In a debate on bus transport last year, Ros made the point that the buses that carry children from the villages to school are only viable because they are then used to provide scheduled services, often sponsored by local authorities. As bus subsidies are cut, those services disappear, leaving the buses potentially unutilised and unproductive. We'll see what Susan Kramer has to say on the subject in response.

The Chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, Lord Kakkar, appears before the Constitution Committee for the first time since his appointment, to answer questions about its work. Given that Ros sits on the Commission, I'll be taking a close interest on what he has to say. And, talking of Ros, EU Sub-Committee D, which she chairs, meets to continue work on their forthcoming report on food waste.

Andrew Phillips, Suffolk's other Liberal Democrat peer, has an oral question on Thursday about mitigating the social and cultural consequences of the weakening of community life in the UK, whilst Liz Barker initiates a debate on the effectiveness of the Charity Commission. It might not be a very long debate, as they're not very good, a point that the Public Accounts Committee made rather forcefully in a report published recently.

Amongst some general tidying up is the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014, and I'll touch on that separately. There is also a debate, initiated by Dominic Addington, a keen rugby player, on advice given regarding concussions sustained in sporting injuries, an issue that has been in the news somewhat of late.

So, there you go, the first review here on "Liberal Bureaucracy". If you have any suggestions, feel free to make them, either by leaving a comment below, or by reaching me on Twitter or by e-mail...

It looks like I'm part of the vole-untary sector... a weekend in Suffolk...

My cute friend here is suddenly a minor celebrity in these parts, having appeared in the latest Stowupland Focus, as part of a story about the threat to our local nature reserve.

Yes, it's time for another Focus, with stories on buses - bad for Stowupland, good for Creeting St Peter, waste disposal and local government reorganisation, and Ros, Jamie and I were out in the brisk south-westerly winds, delivering them across the ward, and I'm delighted to say that we've very nearly finished, with just a few outliers still to deliver.

It's funny, but I actually enjoy delivering leaflets in my ward. People are surprisingly friendly, and they take a polite interest as I amble around, leaflet in hand. Occasionally, I get caught up in conversation, and it's a great way to get a perspective on what's happening in the community. And it has other positive effects, as I appear to be a bit lighter than I was when the campaign really got under way. I suspect that, if I am lucky enough to get elected, there might be a book in it, "The District Councillor Guide to a Better You".

But our weekend wasn't just about leaflets, there was an outing to Sudbury, where we had been invited for tea. I'd never been to Sudbury before, an omission which certainly surprised Ros, and it's a lovely little town, on the end of a little branch line off of the main East Anglia line at Marks Tey, on the River Stour. Andrew Phillips, our host, and his wife Penelope live in a house which runs down to the river, and we had a lively early evening before it was time to head back to mid-Suffolk.

On the way back, Ros had a moment of genius, and suggested that we have dinner at the Bildeston Crown, a 15th century coaching inn. Ros had the bream, whilst I plumped for the pigeon, served as roast, confit and pithivier (a miniature pie, with the leg bone of the pigeon stuck in the top). It was a mite on the fussy side for us villagers, but very good none the less, and washed down in my case by Suffolk's own lager, Calvors.

As we left, Ros noted some press cuttings, and her attention was drawn to a report of a rather rowdy public meeting during the 1885 General Election, when the Riot Act was read to the assembled throng, and seven, yes seven, policeman were required to restore order. Those were the days...

Regional Secretary: still crazy after all these years?...

And as my first term as East of England's Regional Secretary headed towards a close, was I going to get a second term. Was I even going to seek another? Questions, questions as Ros and I headed towards Huntingdon and our Regional Conference...

So, on arrival, I made my way towards Alan Window, our Returning Officer, graciously giving up a day at his own Regional Conference to help us out. No, not a single nomination for Secretary, so it was clearly down to me. I needed two nominators, so I did what any gentleman would do, and sought out the two senior members of our County Party - Ros and Andrew Phillips, who kindly agreed to sign.

Nomination papers signed, sealed and delivered to the Returning Officer, I waited whilst he confirmed that all was in order, and returned to the Conference Hall...  

Andrew Phillips - still right about ID cards...

Only in the House of Lords can you have the chance to return from the dead, so to speak, but very few have returned from the administrative grave that is 'leave of absence'. Suffolk is the home of one of those very few, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. Before he took leave of absence, he led for the Liberal Democrats on the Identity Cards Bill, forensically taking apart the arguments given by the then Labour Government. And now he's back, in time to participate in another Identity Cards Bill...

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I admire the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, for sticking to the old guns, as you might say. It may be worth while in this Second Reading debate reviewing where we have come from because I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, was not accurate in what he said. The principal issue that exercised this House back in 2005-06, to such an extraordinary degree that we threw that Bill back to the Commons three times, was the issue of compulsion. It is wrong of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, to start his speech by saying that the previous Government introduced a Bill for a voluntary card. Indeed they did according to their manifesto, but when the Bill came out it was compulsory. That is the rock upon which the opposition in this House was built and that opposition then grew across all Benches. It is as well to remember that.

I pay tribute to Mr Willcock. I do not suppose that many in the Chamber remember dear old Mr Willcock who, when asked by a policeman in 1952, refused to produce his identity card. He said, “I am not going to produce my identity card. The identity card was to stop the Germans, not to help you on some piffling nonsense”. The High Court upheld the good gentleman’s refusal and the identity card legislation was swiftly repealed. The point of that was to show that identity cards tend to have what you might call usage creep. The state cannot resist the opportunity to use the card for more and more things in more and more situations.

Again, one aspect of the Bill of 2005 that this House objected to profoundly was the right of the Secretary of State to add to the circumstances in which the identity card could be used and, in particular, to add to the category of information that could be on the national identity register. Let us not forget that the national identity register was to be unique in the world in terms of the amount of information that it would collect on each citizen. Microsoft licked its lips and referred to the register as the great honey-pot because it was to be the greatest source of information on earth.

The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, objects to what we are doing now because of the commercialisation that he says afflicts disadvantaged youths who want to establish their identity. I would be totally sympathetic to that if I felt that he was correct. However, he omits to remember not only that the ID cards that the Bill will abolish would have been compulsory if this House had not intervened three times but—this could never have been taken away—the huge cost of the scheme, which the LSE working group established would be more than £20 billion over the first 10 years and which was to be recouped by selling the ID cards to the great retailing outlets. These would have readers which, if you spent more than £15 at XYZ store, would read the purchase into the national identity register. Every time that happened, the store would have paid a small sum of money, and—how many of us remember this?—the national identity register would have recorded every occasion on which the card was used. The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, looks quizzical, but I assure him that that is so. That is why people objected to the sort of information build-up to which the card would lead.

Lord Brett: We are having a Second Reading debate on a Bill that will repeal an Act. Will the noble Lord say where in the Act the facts that he is putting forward appear? In the Act that was passed in this House and in the other place, there is no reference to that.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: It is a bit much to ask me to refer to a point of detail in the Act. I shall tell the noble Lord afterwards, but he need only read Hansard. I assure him that the Government did not deny that they would pay for a substantial part of the cost by commercial use and that every use of the card would register on the NIR. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, will agree with that.

Let me quickly pay tribute to NO2ID and Liberty for the huge help that they gave this House in respect of that Bill. I also repeat what the noble Countess said about Lord Northesk, whom we all miss and who was of great use to the House in the course of the passage of that Bill, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who is not in her place now.

To come to the Bill, those of us who fought and fought the previous Bill welcome this one with huge enthusiasm. I believe that the Identity Cards Act 2006 would have affected fundamentally the relationship between the citizen and the state. It is as well to think of “citizen” rather than “subject”, because in some respects that Act would have had a deleterious effect on that vital relationship. However, I say to my noble friend, who confirmed in opening the debate that there will be no repayment of the £30, that I think that that is a serious mistake. It seems unfair to say that people should have kept an eye on what we do in this House and should have carried in their heads the fact that the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party had made clear statements in the course of that Bill’s passage that they would repeal it if they came to power. Simple fairness should lead Government to repay those sums of £30—whether to old women or to rich hedge fund managers, I do not mind. It is not fair to abolish ID cards and not to repay that money. It is a modest sum in relation to the total costs already incurred.

I am sad that the Bill is as complex as it is. I do not know how many noble Lords have tried to read through the Bill, but it is a nightmare, even for an old lawyer like me. In Committee, I shall table a lot of amendments to attempt to make its provisions clearer. I draw attention to just a couple of clauses. In Clause 4, “Possession of false identity documents etc with improper intention”, the definition of improper intention in the second subsection does not say whether it is exhaustive. In addition, the reference to “false identity documents” is not true to the clause because it covers situations in which the documents are not false. The language of the clause is also extremely complex; I hope that we will be able to simplify it as we go along. Clause 6(1)(a) provides for an offence of possessing without reasonable excuse,

“an identity document that is false”.

That does not seem to be reconcilable with an almost exactly parallel offence in Clause 4(2)(a). I hope that that is not too detailed a point for a Second Reading debate.

Clause 10 desperately needs rewording, because it allows the Secretary of State to require various authorities to provide him or her with what is called “verifying information”. At the end, there is a nasty little subsection that states that the Secretary of State may specify by order,

“any other person … for the purposes of this section”.

That could take us right into the realms of private businesses, and we will need to look at that.

I welcome the Bill with great enthusiasm, as have my noble friend Lady Hamwee and others. I would like to think that, by the time it leaves us, the Bill will be really fit for purpose as well as fit in intent.

It's good to have him back...