Identity Cards Bill

In respect of equivalence with the poll tax, I would not have expected the Minister to say anything else. However, I also have considerable sympathy with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. In digressing briefly, the thought has occurred to me that if the notional financial benefits to which the noble Baroness alluded in our earlier debates are accurate, I singularly fail to understand why, when they exceed the cost of the scheme, the Home Office is insisting on charging us for the cards. I leave that to one side for the moment. In respect of the amendment, I do not necessarily disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in the sense that some form of adjective to work to the advantage of the citizen may be appropriate. My difficulty is that the word ““convenient”” in this context is most assuredly the wrong adjective. If the noble Lord had been able to offer an alternative, I would be much more sanguine about the issue. Equally, I do not doubt that, in the Minister’s words, ““convenient”” is a ““good word””, but again for me its context is inappropriate and subjective. While I can accept that ID cards may be convenient, in the context of the use of the word ““convenient”” the presumption is that the registrable facts, that is to say the register, will be convenient, and that is a view to which I simply cannot subscribe. This late in our proceedings I do not propose to try the patience of the Committee any further. Bluntly, I do not see the sense of returning to this issue on Report. Nevertheless, I do feel very strongly about it, and therefore I wish to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 43