Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 February 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Identity Cards Bill.


Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, my noble colleague Lord Pearson of Rannoch seeks further clarification from the Minister, as does the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I admire the indefatigability of my noble friend—he is still a friend even though he does not take the Whip at the moment. He has an enviable knowledge of the intricacies of the inter-relationship between the EU and UK legislative and constitutional issues. Like my noble friend Lord Waddington, I support the intent behind this amendment, but like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I note that subsection (1) of the proposed new clause is not operable. If we wished to travel across the EU, we would have to comply with its requirements. Shame, one might say, but that is the reality. I anticipate that, as my noble friend said, the amendment seeks clarification and will not be pressed today. Subsection (2) ask a very pertinent question, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give a proper and satisfactory reply to my noble friend’s questions on it. I am aware that these days it is almost impossible to speak at Bill do now pass. It seems to me that the House has tried to stop that. As my noble friend moved the amendment with such tenacity it seems to me an ideal opportunity to reflect on the marvellous support that I have received from my Back-Benchers—17 of whom have during our six days in Committee, three days on Report and during Second Reading and Third Reading, taken part in discussions on the Bill. I am extremely grateful to them as they have teased out more and more of the difficulties that the Government are heaping upon us through their drafting of the Bill. I also want to put on record my appreciation of the work of the Government’s Bill team and of the courtesy that both Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, have shown in the way they have handled the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, is unavoidably absent today. I am sure that all our thoughts are with her. The Ministers have had to respond to a barrage of criticism on the Bill’s core issues—issues on which the House has decided against the Government. I refer to three issues. First, the Government should not compel us to have ID cards by stealth during a period which the Government promised in their election manifesto would be a voluntary period. Secondly, the Government are still unable to give the House a clear indication of costs that may be audited for the running of the scheme. Thirdly, I refer to the issue of the commissioner’s powers and the independence of that office. We believe it is right that another place should now have the opportunity to look again at all those issues. My fervent hope is that the Government will allow another place sufficient time next Monday to debate them properly because the people of our country deserve nothing less than that.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c464-5 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Data protection Codes of practice Crime prevention Applications Costs Certification Fraud Fees and charges ICT Identity cards Documents European Union Fines Entry clearances National identity register Proof of identity Passports Registration Criminal Records Bureau Office of the Identity Commissioner
Legislation
Identity Cards Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk