We should say that we accept that if people register for a passport, their entry goes on to the national identity register, but that we also accept that people can refuse to take an ID card for as long as it is voluntary. If the electorate later agree that the scheme should become compulsory, at that stage their entries will be on the register and all that we need do is to let them know that their ID card is now ready. We would not be compelling them to take the card, but merely moving forward on the register, which is essentially the same as that for the passport. It seems to me that that is a key objective of Lord Armstrong in trying to avoid the compulsory issuing of identity cards, and that it also achieves the objectives of the scheme in moving forward and giving us the chance to do what the electorate understood that we wanted to do—to move forward with an identity card scheme.
I hope that this has been a helpful contribution to the debate. I also hope that we are able to reject the amendment, because I honestly do not think that it would work, and that when it goes back to the Lords, they will accept the change.
It being one hour after commencement of proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Order [13 February].
The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 251.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Nick Palmer
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 29 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
444 c890-1 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 21:57:01 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_313385
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_313385
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_313385