---

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to the Minister. On the issue of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, she is right that I do not ever mislead the House, certainly not intentionally. I referred to the full debate in Committee because I thought that it would be rather tedious for those who were not able to be with us at that time to be taken through every argument. What I was able to show there was that, whether the Government believed that the whole Bill provided for a compulsory scheme preceded by a voluntary phase or whether the initial phase was not at all voluntary, I still won both ways in the argument. Paragraph 20 of the report says:"““Whether one considers this Bill as introducing a voluntary scheme which may gradually be extended towards compulsion””—" which the House has now decided it should be—"““or a Bill which provides for a compulsory scheme preceded by a voluntary stage””." The noble Baroness said that if it is the latter, that supports the Government. Our argument has been that the Government’s definition of ““voluntary”” is: ““if you do not want a new passport, you’ll never leave this country and we will make sure of that””. That is not voluntary by any definition by people outside this House or, I think, by most people inside it. We went through the construct of that paragraph. I have huge respect for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I do not think that I am going to be working against its recommendations in anything that I have argued, either in Committee or today. I am grateful to the Minister for putting so clearly on the record her assurances about the way in which she would anticipate the super-affirmative procedure going forward. For whatever reason, that clarity was not provided in the other place. She has provided it today. As ever, her clarity and her reassurances are accepted 100 per cent. However, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, pointed out that one government cannot bind the next with such assurances. So, on a matter as significant as the transfer between an alleged voluntary scheme to one of compulsion, is a super-affirmative procedure adequate? For all the reasons adduced by noble Lords today, we believe that it is not; that the move to all-out compulsion is of too great significance. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said, the issues of principle, practicality and cost are the classic decisions that can be taken only after the detailed consideration and reflection that primary legislation allows us. The Minister said that the Government are trying to take a balanced, proportionate and practical approach. I believe her, because that is the way in which she approaches her work in this House. It is because of that important need to do exactly as she said and to take a balanced, proportionate and practical approach to the transition to compulsion that my amendment is necessary. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 46) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 198; Not-Contents, 140 [Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.] Clause 7 [Procedure for orders under s. 6]: [Amendment No. 49 not moved.] [Amendment No. 50 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.] [Amendment No. 51 not moved.]