| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I understand the seriousness of the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I have no knowledge at this time of any plans that the Secretary of State might have to make such a statement. However, she will no doubt have noted the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, which are now on the record, and will decide accordingly.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that we are not now to proceed with Lords amendments to the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill this afternoon. Will you confirm that that is the case and tell
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1640
us whether you have been notified of any reason for the delay? Given that we were informed of the business of the House for the next two weeks just two hours ago, without any alternative date being given, may we assume that those Lords amendments will now be taken after the Easter recess?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that I understand that his supposition is correct, but I also understand that the Minister will deal with the matters he has raised when we reach them during the debate later today.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee),
Mr. Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am most grateful for your earlier guidance, but will we actually reach the matter in the debate if it is not to be proceeded with? You said that the Minister would give an indication on the matter when we reached it in the debate, but if it is to be withdrawn we will never reach that point. I wonder whether you could give me some further guidance.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I am advised that the hon. Gentleman should pursue the matter through the usual channels. I also understand that when we reach the matter during the debate it will be dealt with then. The Minister will either move or not move the items that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1639
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1641
Orders of the Day
Identity Cards Bill
Lords reasons for insisting on amendments and disagreeing to Commons amendments, considered.
1.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 16 and 22, and proposes the Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof.
The amendments are technical amendments to clause 8, making it clear that an application for an identity card must include or accompany one to be entered on the national identity register. We have already had one debate on the Lords amendments this week, on Monday 13 March, when the House rejected them for the second time. However, their lordships have again insisted on their amendments to remove the requirement for anyone obtaining a designated document such as a passport to register and be issued with an identity card.
Yesterday, in the other place, the mover of the main Lords amendment, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, rebuked me in his summation in the following terms:
"The other thing worth saying is that last Monday, the Home Secretary . . . in levelling his defence against our proposal to make the scheme voluntary, did not in any sense call upon the constitutional justification of the Commons' position that has been the mainstay of the noble Baroness's closing speech"
—he was referring to Baroness Scotland of Asthal—
"and has been the subject of speeches from various noble Lords. Mr Clarke attempted to justify the Government's case according to the issues that he raised in the other place—none of them were constitutional issues; they related to the merits and demerits of this Bill.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 2006; Vol. 679, c. 1248–49.]
I intend to remedy that defect in my presentation today. Let me start with what was said by Lord Strathclyde, the leader of the main Opposition party in the Lords. He spoke very wisely, as befits a graduate of the University of East Anglia. He said:
"This House should always proceed with caution when it is trying to defeat the Government, even when it is asking the House of Commons to think again on a Bill it has passed. Generally speaking, we do that. I think we always do that. What is so unusual about this aspect is that the Government have already been defeated on two occasions, and therefore this is the third occasion on which we are dealing with this matter.
In this context, perhaps I may make three points. First, I think the House should proceed with caution and should deal with matters as controversial as this only when they are very few in number. This is the first time in this Session that we have come to an issue of this kind. Secondly, we should proceed only on an issue where there is a good deal of public support for what this House is doing. Thirdly, we should not proceed if there are issues to do with the Salisbury convention. My noble Friend and the Government may disagree about the use of the Salisbury convention; I am entirely satisfied that there are no Salisbury convention implications if the House were to return this small point back to another place."
I shall deal with each of those three points. The first was that the House of Lords should proceed with caution. I think that Lord Strathclyde was quite right about that, and he should take his own advice. The fact
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1642
is that the amendment is not a small point. It constitutes a major and deliberate effort by the Opposition parties to sabotage the whole of a Bill that has been agreed by this House, and that was set out to the public during the general election campaign. I hope that the Lords will indeed proceed with caution, and will not adopt a strategy that is designed to undermine the entire Bill.
Secondly, Lord Strathclyde said that the other place
"should proceed only on an issue where there is a good deal of public support for what this House is doing."
I remind the House—and perhaps, via this House, the other place—of the facts about public support. There is not such support for what the House of Lords is doing. Even the result of the latest opinion poll sponsored by the NO2ID campaign shows that 52 per cent. of the public are in favour, while Home Office research shows that 70 per cent. are in favour.
Lord Strathclyde said that the other place
"should proceed only on an issue where there is a good deal of public support for what this House is doing."
According to the NO2ID campaign, 52 per cent. of people are in favour of the identity cards and against what the other place is doing; and, as I have said, Home Office research shows that 70 per cent. are in favour.
The Conservative election manifesto was entirely silent on the matter, although the then leader of the party was a known supporter of identity cards. However, the findings of an opinion poll published by ICM before the election, in December 2004, show that some 80 per cent. of the public were then in favour of the introduction of identity cards, with 88 per cent. of Conservative supporters, 81 per cent. of Labour supporters and 72 per cent. of Liberal Democrat supporters in favour. So the answer to Lord Strathclyde's second point—that the Lords should block the will of this elected Chamber only if there is clear public support—is that there is not.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Surely the point is that it was not put to the people who were polled that the system would be compulsory. I am sure that there would be huge support for voluntary identity cards. The issue that the House of Lords and this House are having to consider is the whole issue of voluntary versus compulsory. I suspect that if those people had been asked, "Should it be a criminal offence not to carry an identity card?" or, "Should it be compulsory to carry an identity card?", the answer would have been very different.
Mr. Clarke: We have already agreed, in response to proposals from the other place, that before the stage was reached of making identity cards compulsory there would be further primary legislation. The Bill explicitly excludes a requirement for anyone to carry an identity card, so what the hon. Gentleman has said is completely incorrect.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |