The other place is entirely within its rights in rejecting an attempt by the Government to impose compulsion by stealth in the name of voluntarism. The nub of the problem is that every Member of both Houses is being asked to indulge in doublespeak whereby ““voluntary”” mutates into ““compulsory””. Surely they are within their rights in saying that that will not happen in their name.
The final merit and virtue of the amendments is that they would allow the electorate to have another look at the issue, and to judge whether the Government have been straightforward in their acrobatics. As I have said, the commitment in Labour’s last manifesto to a voluntary introduction of identity cards has miraculously re-emerged as an introduction of identity cards by compulsion. If the Government accepted the amendments, at least the voters would be able to decide what is voluntary and what is compulsory. I hope that common sense would prevail when they read the extraordinarily ambiguous doublespeak in that manifesto.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Nick Clegg
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 21 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
444 c193 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 23:45:19 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_310697
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_310697
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_310697