Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I very much share the sympathy that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary expressed for the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, to find a compromise. Anyone who knows the noble Lord will not only have sympathy for his proposal but huge respect for everything that he has ever done. The noble Lord—I nearly called him my noble friend because he sits on my Bench—made it quite clear that he was not attempting to make any mischief with the Bill or the Government. Of course, one enormously respects that view and his view about personal freedom. I have on occasion expressed my views about parts of the Bill myself. In normal circumstances, I could well have been tempted to vote for the noble Lord’s proposal. But these are not normal circumstances. This is the fourth time that your Lordships’ House has rejected the elected House’s view. One cannot help wondering, in parentheses, if 70 per cent of your Lordships were elected, how many times they would try to block the other elected Chamber. I am not sure how many of us would be here, because 70 per cent of us would presumably go—I am not sure how. The Home Secretary has been prayed in aid of the view of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. In fact, although welcoming what my right honourable friend described as the ““helpful intervention”” of the noble Lord, he continued:"““I understand the reasoning behind Lord Armstrong’s proposal and am very grateful to him for his efforts to help to resolve the impasse. However, I have to say that while I agree that an opt-out might well make more sense than an opt-in, the reality would be the same. We would still be introducing a large degree of uncertainty into the plans for rolling out identity cards””.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/06; col. 182.]" That was really the Home Secretary’s view. Anyone who knows anything about the Bill is bound to agree with that. Most of all, despite my huge respect for the noble Lord, I am extremely disappointed that he has sought to move the amendment. It would never have occurred to me to describe the noble Lord as na&-uml;ve. All my experience of him in government is far from that. But he must have seen beforehand that he was being used by the Opposition. If he did not see that beforehand, he must have seen it today. For a distinguished nominated Member of your Lordships’ House to move for the fifth time to disagree with the elected House would not be sensible. It would be quite wrong. I hope that, on reflection, he will not seek to press the Motion.