Instead, peers
backed a compromise proposal to keep the scheme voluntary until
2011 – after the next general election.
While the Identity Cards Bill is controversial in its own right,
the Lords have taken particular objection to a Government amendment
that would force anyone applying for or renewing their passport
from 2008 to also have to pay for an identity card.
But critics argue that this would make the scheme compulsory,
which is contrary to a Labour manifesto pledge to “introduce ID
cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a
national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as
people renew their passports."
The proposal has been described as "compulsion by the back door"
and earlier this month peers voted to reject it by a majority of
35. But the House of Commons reinstated the amendment last week,
sending it back to the House of Lords for further debate.
Speaking ahead of the vote yesterday, Lord Phillips of Sudbury,
the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesman, explained that a
compromise amendment had been put forward, ensuring “that no one
will be compelled to have an ID Card when obtaining a passport
before 2012. This delay will allow the political parties to make
clear where they stand on this fundamental issue at the next
election."
"In the meantime, anyone will be able to voluntarily take out an
ID Card," he said, adding that “in five years' time it will be much
clearer what the effects of this scheme will be in terms of cost,
technology and public opinion."
Labour peers fought back, accusing the opposition and rebels of
ignoring the voice of elected MPs. But Lord Sudbury denied that
this was the case.
"I have a complete sense of the superiority of the Commons. We
are lucky to be here at all and we try and do a good job, but we
are subservient to the elected House," he said, according to the
BBC. “It is principally because I think it is thoroughly
disreputable and dishonest of us to pretend that voluntary means
compulsory that I have stuck to my guns.”
Peers approved the compromise by 211 votes to 175 – a majority
of 36.
MPs are due to consider the compromise when the Bill comes back
before them today. In the meantime, Government ministers are
becoming increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress, and have
threatened to use the Parliament Acts to force the Bill
through.
The Parliament Acts took away the House of Lords’ power to veto
a bill – unless it is one to prolong the life of a parliament –
leaving it with power only to delay the bill for a year. But using
the Act in this case would bring further delays to the ID card
scheme, something the Government is anxious to avoid.
In the future it may be able to avoid such struggles, if another
controversial Bill, currently working its way through Parliament,
is approved.
The measure in question is the Legislative and Regulatory Reform
Bill, which is touted as making it quicker and easier to tackle
unnecessary or over-complicated regulation by giving ministers the
ability to amend, replace, or repeal existing legislation.
But critics argue that the Bill gives too much power to the
Government which, they say, could overturn even fundamental
constitutional laws – such as the Magna Carta – without proper
Parliamentary debate.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
