---

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, to be found speaking in the company of the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, puts my ““euro reputation”” at a certain risk. However, I remain an undimmed admirer of the indefatigability of both noble Lords, even though I disagree with them more often than I agree. As always, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has done his homework. In moving the amendment, he seems to be saying that we have not yet signed up to a decision on ID cards in Europe that could be taken by a qualified majority and that he wants to prevent that happening without the consent of this Parliament. Given that we have spent 50 or 60 hours debating—often with some passion—our views on compulsory ID cards of our own making, that is not an unreasonable proposition. It would make a mockery of all our efforts if in three months’ time—having opted into whatever it is—we find ourselves outvoted. Have I got that right? If I have, subsection (2) of the amendment is fair enough. I do not consider subsection (1) to be a runner on any basis. If we are not going to be part of the EU machinery that consented to the introduction of euro ID cards, we can scarcely complain if—having turned our back on that—there are certain consequences for our citizens. We cannot pass a clause in the Bill saying that, whatever Europe does with or without our consent or support, it will not be allowed to require us to have the ID card it has decided upon if we travel in its territory. I am trying to be helpful. I do not think that subsection (1) works but I am fascinated to know if there is substance in subsection (2).