By Andy McCue, 28 March 2006 17:30
NEWS
The parliamentary battle over the ID cards bill remains deadlocked after the House of Lords again defeated government proposals that would force people applying for or renewing passports from 2008 to register for an ID card.
Peers voted by 219 votes to 191 votes in favour of an amendment to the government's proposed ID card legislation that would allow people to opt-out of putting their biometric details on a national identity database when they renew their passports.
It is the fifth time peers in the House of Lords have rejected what critics call "compulsion by stealth". The ID cards bill will now return to the House of Commons yet again where MPs will vote whether to accept the opt-out compromise or to reject the changes made by peers.
The latest amendment was proposed by independent cross-bench peer Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who argued that the number of people who would choose to opt-out was unlikely to be significant enough to delay or derail the government's ID card scheme.
Home Office minister Baroness Asthal of Scotland argued that if people did not want to be forced to register for an ID card then they could choose to renew their passport - even if it has not expired - before the 2008 cut off date for the introduction of ID cards.
But Conservative peer Baroness Anelay of St Johns said that would result in a "financial penalty" for ID card objectors by forcing them to shell out needlessly for a new passport to avoid being entered on the national identity database when ID cards are introduced from 2008.
She argued that the opt-out amendment would preserve a "vital element of personal freedom".
Lord Armstrong said the amendment provides a way to break the parliamentary impasse by offering a compromise that gives the government most of what it wants in the ID cards bill while still giving people the option of initially choosing whether to register for an ID card.
But Baroness Scotland warned peers against blocking the bill again and said the House of Lords should give way to the will of MPs in the Commons because they "have the mandate of the people of this country".
Comments
There are 11 comments. Join the discussion
1. Karen Challinor
The commons do not have the mandate of the will of the people and they know it
However reformation of the House of lords to make it more amenable is back on the table
2. misceng
What mandate. Political parties seem to assume that because they win an election the whole electorate supports all aspects of their manifesto. As an elderly person I have been through many elections and the winners have usually been seen as the least worst option at the time. Claiming authority for all their manifesto is absurd.
3. Neil Barrett
Unelected, elitist, still not all beholden to the party of the day.. Thank God for the House of Lords!
4. Luigi Fonda
I seem to remember voluntary ID cards being in Labour's manifesto.
If I must get an ID card next time I renew my passport, that is a compulsory ID card by any definition.
Seems to me this control-obsessed government is trying hard to breach their own manifesto commitment in pursuit of a surveillance state. What's in it for them?
5. Drew Edgar
Compulsory ID Cards - A good thing
Cost & Implimentation - A bad thing
How much better would the money be spent on doubling/tripling the number of immigration officials to prevent & track down the illegal immigrants/criminals & prosecute criminal employers who employ/exploit them.
These people have no respect for our Sovereignty or our Rule of Law and no place in the United Kingdom as British Subjects or otherwise.
6. Radical Meldrew
The common factor in the Commons is their total absence of user-friendliness.
They now are pressurising the Lords to push the card bill through even though they have made no decisions on the compulsory or not debate. There is no definition of intended card usage either. All discussion about the budget required to enforce the card scheme has been deferred.
I find this a wee bit incredible when you consider how our allegedly free-thinking democratic parliamentary process is supposed to work.
There has been an overwhelming negative reaction from the general public, unless MPs come clean on their final game plan, this will continue to be the case.
7. anonymous
The whole ID cards debate is a complete fiasco, and unfortunately this is only the first step to a brave new world. The government won't be happy until all babies have their DNA & biometrics recorded at birth under the banner of "the fight against terrorism". Thanks goodness for the common sense and perseverance of the Lords - keep it up.
8. Nadine Roberts
I fully back the amendments by the House of Lords and thank them for standing up for our personal freedom.
MP's do not represent our will if they did they would not be trying to force these expensive, intrusive and unwanted ID cards on us in the 1st place.
9. anonymous
If the government wants to play the "mandate from the people" card then perhaps they should hold a referendum on the issue.
As its now been fairly well-proven that this is not the holy grail for solving identity fraud, terrorism etc. then national security is hardly an issue so what basis is there for not letting the people decide on such a fundamental issue of personal liberty?
10. Chris Goodman
We have two houses in parliament, the Lords and the Commons, whose role is to to keep check on each other and prevent the imposition of unpopular, unwise and unenforceable laws. When it is remembered that the laws and policies of government are designed and framed by senior civil servants, it is the duty of both houses to scrutinise and, where necessary, to deny passage of such missives.
The Upper House is, in the matter of ID Cards, properly and correctly carrying out it's role. Pity the individual MPs in the Commons don't use the same diligence.
11. anonymous
Their are other more sinister bills 'proceeding' onto the statute books.
The revision of the Parliament Act that will remove the 'necessity' to have General Elections every 5 years. Thereby allowing the 'government' in power to create a dictatorship. T Blur, blah is a control freak. G Brown is has possibly even worse tendencies as a control freak. Couple the Parliment Act revision, the ID cards, the governments intention to put everyone's medical records onto a national database. The police keeping the DNA records of innocent people on their database, the fact that per head of population, there are now more CCTV cameras in the UK than anywhere else in the world. It is very clear to me in which direction things are heading. Toward a repressive totalitarian state............ We are nearly there...........