Identity Cards Bill

I am tempted to go to our next debate, but I shall resist that temptation before you, Mr. Speaker, exhort me to shut up, move on and stay with the specifics. The hon. Gentleman, who was on the Standing Committee considering the Bill, is aware of two points. First, as we shall see when we come to the next debate, it is inconceivable that people who have concerns about cost-effectiveness should say to the House that we should ignore the data needed for biometric passports and instead separately introduce additional but identical paraphernalia for ID cards. The hon. Gentleman will also know that I am not a recent convert. I referred to the super-affirmative procedure in Standing Committee—I am sure he was there; he attended assiduously—and said: "““As people will know, the genesis of the provisions is the fact that we regard compulsion to register as the end goal. We regard the step from voluntary to compulsory as a serious one. That is why we sought to put in the Bill a scrutiny process that would allow the House proper time to scrutinise these matters carefully, with due diligence.””" In response to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), I added: "““One interpretation . . . is that the super-affirmative procedure could be seen as a rather crude algorithmic loop, in which something starts here, goes there, and modified or otherwise, comes back.””" We end up in a lock from which there is no escape route. "““If it does not get to where it was headed, it starts again, with no apparent escape from that scrutiny loop. That is an entirely fair point.””" I was feeling in a generous mood even then. I continued: "““We put that down the last time the Bill was determined to be helpful to the House in terms of scrutiny. I assure the Committee that we shall take back and consider those comments, albeit with the clause intact””—" that is, passed by the Committee— "““because that is how these things work.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 12 July 2005; c. 219.]" We decided, in our wisdom, that we were reasonably comfortable with the super-affirmative procedure. Many hon. Members and, indeed, Members of the other place, advanced substantive arguments for the alternative of primary legislation, and we have now succumbed to that will.