UK Parliament / Open data

Identity Cards Bill

Proceeding contribution from Lord Garnier (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 29 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill.
I agree. We are debating, both in this Chamber and in the other place, the fundamental relationship between the citizen and the state. If we upset that balance, which has evolved over centuries, we shall do ourselves and our electorates a disservice. I would not want to go over the arguments that we have had about the terms of the Labour party’s manifesto at the last election. Those arguments are well known and they are clear. As I have said during previous debates, repetition never made a good point better. The point is there and it is one that the House can consider. I gently remind the Government that their earlier reliance on the need to have biometric passports was irrelevant to the earlier debates on the Bill and the setting up of the national identity register, and is even more irrelevant today, especially in the context of Lord Armstrong’s amendments. Today, the Government can do two things. They can either stubbornly turn their face to the wall and ignore the helping hand that is proffered by Lord Armstrong or they can be sensible and realistic and accept it. I had an inkling from the Home Secretary—I was slightly put off by his over-excitement at the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), which I found a disturbing prospect—but I cast that aside. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary says from a sedentary position that he was dreaming about having a bath with my right hon. Friend. I will leave them to have those private discussions elsewhere. A door may have opened in the Home Secretary’s mind, because he uttered the word ““compromise””. That is a helpful step forward, because I did not think that that word could be extracted from his mouth. However, I would like more details—I am happy to accept an intervention from him—about the terms of any compromise that he would find acceptable. In the past, he has set his face against proposals from the other place and the Opposition. If he is in the mood to mention the word ““compromise””, perhaps he could tell us more about the nature of an acceptable compromise. In the meantime, as he queues with his towel outside the bathroom of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden—
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
444 c879-80 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top