| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, can I make it clear why the Government absolutely do not accept it? It is because this is primary legislation that we are now debating. This is the Act in which the whole issue of compulsion or no compulsion should be determined. We have had an extensive opportunity to discuss whether this is a matter on which noble Lords and the other place can concur. I have, in answering the last amendment, set out part of the history demonstrating how the Government sought to deal with the question of compulsion. Since 2002 we have said that this issue will be dealt with in two stages.
The whole point of using the word "initially" was to indicate the two-stage process that we had already put before this House and the other place, first as a draft Bill and then as the Bill that was actively under consideration before the election. We argue strongly that, as far as compulsion is concerned the people of this country have already spoken. They spoke during the election.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, but I do not understand why the second stage should prevent one learning from experience. One of the advantages of doing it in two stages is that you have the opportunity to learn from experience. Yet what the noble Baroness is proposing is making that, if not impossible, then very difficult.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that it is important to learn from experience. The way in which the Government have set out the two-stage process enables us to do just that. The principle of
23 Jan 2006 : Column 990
compulsion would be decided, but the mechanics of how it would be brought in would be amenable to change and sensitive to what we will have learnt between the first and second stages.
There has been implicit criticism that, in taking time to evolve these proposals, we have not been as speedy as we could, bearing in mind the urgency of the situation. The Government are placed in an interesting situation, in which we are determined to be balanced, proportionate and practical in the way we roll this out. We are determined to get the process right.
5.30 pm
The super-affirmative resolution procedure gives us an opportunity for enhanced flexibility greater than that that we have had hitherto. Noble Lords have complained in the past that one of the disadvantages of the affirmative resolution procedure is that you cannot amend. It is a bit like a curate's egg—one either accepts or rejects. The tradition has been that, if the majority of the content of an order is acceptable, one accepts those things with which one may disagree, because it is better to have the majority of issues as opposed to the few. The super-affirmative procedure, for the first time, would give this House and the other place an interesting opportunity, because it would allow them to have a voice about the detail of the provision proposed.
That is the whole purpose for the procedure in Clause 7, which deals with the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. The procedure provides explicitly that the report laid before Parliament must contain all the details of the proposal for compulsion. That proposal can be modified by either House—your Lordships' House or the other place. "Modification" is defined in the Bill as including omission, addition or alteration. Only if both Houses agree on the final report, with or without modification, can the order be made by the Secretary of State, subject to the normal affirmative procedure. That gives the House certainty, in terms of the fact that it is a compulsory scheme; an ability to learn from experience, as the noble and learned Lord indicated; and flexibility on implementation.
I made it clear on the previous occasion, and sought to do so by my intervention when the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was making his remarks in support of the application, that the super-affirmative resolution procedure is as I have more fully now described. The description given by my honourable friend in another place refers to the final position—that if both Houses do not agree, separate and different primary legislation would have to be brought in to implement anything in the order.
I should correct what I am sure was not an intentional comment on the outcome from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, because I think that the noble Baroness has never knowingly misled the House, and I am sure that she did not intend to so do on this occasion. However, it is right for us to look at paragraph 20, to
23 Jan 2006 : Column 991
which she referred, in toto, because it clearly describes two different situations. Perhaps I should read it, for completeness. It states:
"Any assessment of the appropriateness of this delegation of power is dependent on whether one considers this bill as introducing a voluntary scheme which may gradually be extended towards compulsion, or a bill which provides for a compulsory scheme preceded by a voluntary stage. If the former (i.e. if the House is not at this time willing to endorse the principle of a compulsory scheme for all), then the power in clause 6 is inappropriate and a compulsory scheme should only be introduced by means of a bill. If the latter (which accords with the Minister's invitation at second reading and with the provision in the bill and policy in the memorandum), then the power in clause 6 is the most appropriate method to commence a compulsory scheme. We have taken the latter view, that this bill legislates in principle for a compulsory scheme of identity registration for all; and that the super-affirmative procedure proposed for its introduction is thus the most stringent available secondary legislative mechanism for its scrutiny".
We have throughout said that the Government's intention is to introduce a compulsory scheme, but in two stages. I hope that I put that beyond doubt when I said at Second Reading on 31 October that,
"the identity card scheme to be introduced is designed to become compulsory. We therefore need to have the debate on the principle of compulsion now".—[Official Report, 31/10/05; col. 16.]
I did not say that it should be debated on another date; I said "now". This is the primary legislation, on which this House and the other place have an opportunity to express their view and say yea or nay; they should not do so on another occasion. The Government's proposals, which command consistent public support, are for a national identity card scheme which will in time become compulsory. I remind your Lordships that the most recent Home Office research shows that around 73 per cent of people support the introduction of identity cards. Indeed, people often ask why we cannot introduce compulsory identity cards straightaway.
When we move to compulsion, leaving aside any exceptional categories, it will then be compulsory for every British citizen resident in the UK and all foreign nationals resident for more than three months to register, backed up by civil financial penalties for failure to comply. That is the scheme that we are talking about. Through the special super-affirmative procedure set out in Clause 7, Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the precise details, but the debate will be about the timing of compulsion and the categories of individuals to be included in the compulsion order, not the principle.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the Minister has not really answered the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—that primary legislation for the second part would give the opportunity to learn from experience. She indicates that the affirmative order procedure would enable a number of changes to be made to the original scheme, but the difference is that the changes proposed by bureaucrats may not be as good or effective as those that Parliament might wish to make. So far as I can understand her description of the procedure, there would not be the
23 Jan 2006 : Column 992
equivalent of, as it were, a Committee stage, with detailed changes made to the proposal. If it is the same, why on earth not have primary legislation to do it?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hoped that I had addressed fully the noble and learned Lord's points. Having had such an extensive debate on this Bill and debated the issues on principle, we then have an opportunity properly to look at the detail. The super-affirmative resolution procedure allows us to look at that detail and debate the different issues by way of an amendment on each of the matters, so this House and the other place could have the debate on the detail. We argue strongly that that would be the better course.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but she mentioned a couple of minutes ago that the Home Office survey had produced a result of 72 per cent in favour. Does she agree that when we discussed the regional government Bill, we were told that 72 per cent of the population supported regional government, but when it came to a vote of the people, they rejected it by a figure of 3.5 or 4 to 1? Did she also hear "Any Questions?" on Friday or Saturday, in which the audience, after hearing the matter debated extensively, voted virtually unanimously against identity cards, compulsory or otherwise?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |