Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, in her closing remarks this afternoon, the noble Baroness took a small step from persuasion to coercion. I think I may summarise her message as: ““Come to your senses. Resistance is futile. You know the penalty””. She acts as though any minute now she is going to reach into some dusty drawer of history and pull out a barnacled old stick called the Parliament Act, wave it in front of our faces and watch us run for cover. What is that ultimate deterrent, before which we so tremble? I stand to be corrected by noble and learned Lords, but I believe that a judge, before determining a point of law, considers what was in the mind of the lawmaker when the law was made. My noble friend Lord Kingsland, the shadow Lord Chancellor, tells me that the exact phrase is that the judge tries to discern the intention of Parliament when the law was made. So I wonder whether I can take the Minister back to 2 March 1911, when the Parliament Act was being considered. The then Liberal Prime Minister, Mr Asquith, is commending the Parliament Bill to another place on its Second Reading. He describes his intention very clearly:"““Take the hereditary principle. What can we get out of it? Hon. Gentlemen opposite have got a great deal out of it . . . a working instrument to frustrate and nullify the functions of this House when there is a Liberal Government in power . . . That is what the right hon. Gentleman gets out of it””." The right honourable Gentleman was Mr Balfour, the leader of the Conservative opposition. The Prime Minister then told the House the precise purpose of the Parliament Bill. Speaking of the hereditary principle, he said:"““Let it not be our master. So say we. It is because it has been our master . . . because it enslaves and fetters the free action of this House, that we have put these proposals before the House and we mean to carry them into law””.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/3/11; col. 584.]" Winston Churchill was in no doubt about the intention of the Parliament Bill. Campaigning for it around the country, he asked:"““Why should their children govern our children? Why should the sons and the grandsons and the great grandsons have legislative functions?””." He said he hoped that the Bill would be,"““fatal to the hereditary House of Lords””." But, of course, the hereditary House of Lords is dead; the Government killed it in the House of Lords Act 1999. That was why the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, then the Leader of your Lordships’ House, speaking during the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999, said that the reformed House—our House today—would be,"““more democratic, more legitimate, more authoritative””." That was also why the then Attorney-General, the much lamented late Lord Williams of Mostyn said that the present House of Lords—our House—"““will be better equipped, more democratic, more legitimate””." The record seems to show that this intimidating Act has been overtaken by events. It may still have legal authority—others will know better than I do—but it lost its moral authority when the Government removed the hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House.