My Lords, it is because this Bill, in this Parliament, asks both Houses to allow the ““must”” to happen now—not after the next election and not in 2012, but now. That is the answer to which the Commons wish to have a response. We have debated whether it could be postponed, because it is inherent in the ““may”” that this matter could be looked at again. Your Lordships will remember that we are bringing back legislation in the future to consider when this scheme should be made compulsory for everyone. At that stage there will be a consideration of those issues. Until then, the question is whether these documents need to be designated. Yes or no? The Government say yes. Members of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and the Liberal Democrats say no.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in a very principled way, is very clear. He is implacably opposed to introducing this provision. Make no mistake, the noble Lord does not pretend to be anything else. Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition are in a somewhat interesting position. The response from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—and, by implication, from the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns—is that they do not know what their position will be. It is a matter of wait and see, very much like most of the policies coming from Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition—““We cannot tell you what we may decide by the next election””. However, this Government are responsible for bringing in this procedure. We must consider how to spend the taxpayer’s money now. We are responsible for whether things will be scrapped. That is a proper consideration for us.
The Commons did discuss this issue. This is not compulsion by stealth, as has been suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The Commons discussed the mandatory link between designated documents and ID cards at great length. The issue was discussed extensively in Committee in the Commons, and relevant amendments were debated because the Bill was lost at the time of the general election and had to be reintroduced. Again, the mandatory link between designated documents and ID cards was extensively debated in Committee in the Commons and again at Report stage in the Commons. At every stage, it was made clear that it was intended to designate British passports and immigration documents. The issue has been discussed a further three times in the Commons in response to Lords Amendments. The Bill has been totally unequivocal on this issue at all stages.
Now is the time for us to decide what we want to do about this. On the last occasion we were reminded that the other place occasionally has the temerity to disagree with us. That temerity is based on the fact that they have the mandate. There sometimes comes a time when we do not agree with them, and then we continue not to agree with them. But we give way because that is our role. We give way because our role is to question and to test, but not to overrule.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 20 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
680 c39-40 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:39:39 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_310214
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_310214
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_310214