Identity Cards Bill

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 22J and 22K. This is the fourth time that amendments to remove the automatic linkage between designated documents and identity cards have come back to us from the other place and I very much hope that it will be the last time. The amendments were tabled by Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who sits on the Cross Benches. I have high regard for Lord Armstrong, his commitment to the constitution of this country and his knowledge of history relating to it. I know that he was trying to help to reach a constructive conclusion by tabling the amendments. However, as I have said before, the moment has passed for discussing the principle of linking designated documents and ID cards, and it simply would not be possible for the Government to accept a complete opt-out for people who apply for documents designated under the Bill from the requirement to be entered on the national identity register and issued with an identity card. I understand the reasoning behind Lord Armstrong’s amendments. As I have said before, I am grateful to him for trying to help to resolve the impasse that exists. However, while in theory an opt-out might well make more sense than an opt-in, the reality would be the same. We would still be introducing an unacceptably large degree of uncertainty into the plans for rolling out identity cards linked to passports. When the Bill returned to the House on 21 March, the debate was essentially about the timing for implementing the requirement for people applying for a designated document, such as a passport, to register and obtain an identity card, rather than the principle of so doing. That was certainly the line taken by the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), although I have to say that he was more coherent than Lord Phillips of Sudbury in yesterday’s debate in the other place when he made a mistake about a name. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) for reminding me of a particular factor behind that, so I will not read the relevant part of Hansard, although I refer hon. Members to column 655. The line taken by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam was very clear. He said that the amendments to be proposed by Lord Armstrong would"““blow a hole in the Bill””—[Official Report, 21 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 192.]" The position of the Liberal Democrats throughout has been to use any device, however constitutionally doubtful, to destroy the scheme decided by this elected Chamber. I have no intention of accepting any changes that would have the effect of blowing a hole in the Bill, or damaging the delivery of the identity cards scheme as a whole.