My name was on the amendment and I have listened carefully to what my noble friend the Minister said in opening the debate. Three issues need clarifying before we can safely push this matter forward. The first has been well aired—namely, whether this is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Baroness will tell us very soon whether she has had clear advice from the law officers that it is compatible. I line up with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick: it is difficult to comprehend that this confiscatory measure can be consistent with the protocol. That is the first issue.
The second issue has also been well aired—my noble friend Lady Hamwee has just referred to it—namely, whether we can at this juncture pick a fight with the Commons on its reasons. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said and I would be the first to leap on to the barricades if I felt that the privileges of this House were being undermined, but we need clear advice on that. Perhaps the learned Clerk may have something to say. I am very disappointed to see him shake his bewigged head. My own sense, for what it is worth, is that the Commons have a case. The amendment is a specifically money amendment; it specifically commits the Exchequer to compensation at the rate of £30 per ID card surrendered.
Identity Documents Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 21 December 2010.
It occurred during Legislative debate on Identity Documents Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
723 c1006-7 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 19:39:39 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_696152
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_696152
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_696152