I shall not give way any more at this stage.
I return to what Lord Strathclyde said in the other place yesterday, because it is important. I believe that I have addressed each of the three points that he made. As I said earlier, he made it clear that the Lords should not proceed if there are issues to do with the Salisbury convention. He said that if the Government were not prepared to back down or to find a compromise, the only option was for the unelected House to force the Government to use the Parliament Act procedure to ensure that the will of the elected House prevails.
The Parliament Act has been used four times since 1949, and Lord Strathclyde is not right to suggest that we have reached the point where that option should be invoked. For the three reasons that he himself gives in columns 1244 and 1245 of the Official Report of yesterday’s Lords debate, the other place should indeed think again, just as this place should decide to insist on its own position.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Charles Clarke
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 16 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
443 c1646 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:58:10 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_309235
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_309235
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_309235