Proceeding contribution from Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 23 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Identity Cards Bill 2005-06.
Identity Cards Bill
My Lords, I of course take note of what the noble Baroness said. Therefore, I shall remind the House what the report of the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords stated about the convention at Recommendation 7:"““The principles underlying the ‘Salisbury Convention’ remain valid and should be maintained. A version of the ‘mandate’ doctrine should continue to be observed: where the electorate has chosen a party to form a Government, the elements of that party’s general election manifesto should be respected by the second chamber. More generally, the second chamber should be cautious about challenging the clearly expressed views of the House of Commons on public policy issue. It is not possible to reduce this to a simple formula, particularly one based on manifesto commitments””." In this regard, the Government have been absolutely clear that their policy was for identity cards; that their policy was for compulsory cards; and that this is the way in which we seek to deliver them. It was our clear intention throughout the period 2002 to 2005, before the general election, that this procedure would be adopted; that is, the same procedure that comes before the House today. It would not be right to resile from that position now. I shall deal briefly with some of the issues that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, made a good point when he said that we either have a compulsory scheme or that we do not. The arguments for compulsion are strong. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, sought to compare the firearms register with this register. I remind him that we have chosen the Passport Agency because it has a proven track record of delivery—on time, on budget—and it has gained the confidence of the public. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said quite rightly that this ID card scheme is going to happen anyway. I agree with him. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I say that this scheme will be able to deal with the human rights of individuals, particularly in relation to the issues raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. This issue was looked at comprehensively. I can reassure the noble Viscount that a compulsory identity card scheme is compatible with our international obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights. In its report on the Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights confirmed at paragraph 4.5:"““A requirement to have or to carry some form of identity cards does not of itself raise human rights issues as has been established by the European Court of Human Rights. Many Council of Europe countries operate identity card schemes which are generally considered to comply with the ECHR””."
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 677 c973-4
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Data protection Biometrics Crime prevention Death Costs Delegated legislation Fees and charges Identity cards Information Documents Personal records Proof of identity Passports Registration Security Driving licences
- Legislation
- Identity Cards Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-26 17:00:37 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_293538
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_293538
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_293538