Identity Cards Bill

I suspect that many of my constituents—I do not choose to speak on behalf of other hon. Member’s constituents, as has been done in the House—consider the debate with absolute dismay, as those of us who engaged with our constituents and surveyed and invited comments know. The numbers in my constituency were overwhelmingly in favour of an identity card, and they continue to be so. My constituents will know, having had an opportunity to see the debate, that there is another motive behind the Opposition supporting the other House in its attempt. The reason why I absolutely depart from some of the spurious arguments on why the Bill should not proceed is that I hear the same Opposition Members who argue for clarity in databases and say that we must have a single database—I cite child protection and many other issues that are before the House—using an entirely separate argument in this case. It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [13 February 2006]. Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 16 and 22, but does not insist on its amendment No. 22C and proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof. The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 241.