Those who voted Aye failed to change the motion for debate to:

This House declines to give a Second Reading to the Identity Cards Bill because it would lead to an unreasonable intrusion into the liberties and privacy of the citizen; it would not achieve benefits proportionate to the cost, as the underlying technology is likely to prove unreliable; and the introduction of such cards is likely to lead to a requirement that they be carried at all times and such a requirement would be objectionable in principle and would lead to serious tension between the police and the citizen.

which could have blocked the Identity Cards Bill, had it been passed.

Note to readers: This is the old Identity Cards Bill, introduced by the then Home Secretary David Blunkett in the 2001 Parliament. It passed all stages in the House of Commons, but ultimately failed to get into law due to the timing of the 2005 General Election. The new Identity Cards Bill was introduced by the Home Secretary Charles Clarke on 28 June 2005 and, although it is virtually the same, must proceed through all the stages of Parliamentary scrutiny once again.

The Aye-voters sent the Identity Card Bill into the next stage of the Parliamentary progress, the Standing Committee.

After the Standing Committee has read it, it reports its recommended changes back to the House and, after the Third Reading, the Bill goes to the House of Lords and then into law.

Once it returns to the House and its amendments have been accepted, there is a Third Reading Debate, after which the Bill is sent to the House of Lords before it becomes law.

This is a requirement of Standing Order 52(1)(a) for Bills that require money resolutions.

I beg to move,

That the Order of 20th December 2004 (Identity Cards Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:

Question put:-

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 131.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-

The clause in question (Clause 1) establishes the main principles of the bill. Those voting Aye in this division agreed to the main principles of the National Identification Scheme Bill.

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 221.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-

The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 233.

Amendment proposed: No. 26, in page 22, line 3 [Clause 25], leave out from 'must' to 'about' and insert

'lay before each House of Parliament a general report'.- [Mr. Malins]

Question put, That the amendment be made:-

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 236.

The House having divided: Ayes 54, Noes 227.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I begin, on behalf of the Government, by thanking all those who have worked hard to bring the Bill to this stage. I associate myself entirely with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration in commending the work of the Joint Committee and hon. Members from all parties who contributed to that. I thank officials in the Home Office for the consistent and coherent work that they have done over a long time. I also thank the staff of the House for their work to bring the Bill to this stage.

It being Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 64.

The Aye-voters agreed to set a timetable for Standing Committee D and "Third Reading" debate of the Identity Cards Bill.

The Standing Committee is to finish its work by Tuesday 19th July 2005. Afterwards, when the "Third Reading" is held in the main chamber, the debate must finish one hour before the end of the Parliamentary day.

MPs could have demanded a longer timetable with more scrutiny had they chosen to vote this motion down.

Those who voted Aye were setting a precise for the remaining debate on the Identity Cards Bill, on the back of the approximate timetable they set on 28 June 2005. Briefly, everything would be concluded at 10pm, in six hours time.

Those voting Aye were trying to recommit the Identity Cards Bill to a Select Committee. Recommittal means that the details of the Bill would again be subject to line-by-line scrutiny, as it was earlier in the Standing Committee. A Select Committee is, however, able to take external evidence and write a report which balances the views of all of its members. The Select Committee report, published on 20 July 2004, on the Identity Cards Bill which did not complete its passage in the previous Parliamentary session is here.

The majority of MPs voted against inserting the phrase "who reasonably require proof"^[1] to the end of a sentence taken approximately from the proposed law, which says:

• The statutory purposes of the National Identity Register are to facilitate a convenient method for such individuals to prove registrable facts about themselves to others ().^[2]

By leaving this out, they make it clear that there will be no limitation whatsoever on the uses the National Identity Register will be put to.

• [1] Patrick Mercer MP, House of Commons, 18 October 2005
• [2] Clause 1(3) of the ID Cards Bill

The majority of MPs voted against altering a section of the Identity Cards Bill which says:

• When someone applies for a designated document, they must either apply to be entered into the National Identity Register, or prove they are already listed and update its contents.^[1]

so that the word "must" was replaced with the phrase "may, if the applicant so chooses".^[2]

Had this been passed, it could not be made compulsory to register for an ID card when renewing a passport, driving license, or other potentially "designated document".

• [1] Clause 5(2) of the Identity Cards Bill
• [2] Niel Gerrard MP, House of Commons, 18 October 2005

The majority of MPs voted to give the Identity Cards Bill^[1] its Third Reading. This means it now gets discussed by the House of Lords, where, if it is passed unchanged, it becomes law as an Act of Parliament.

If the Lords do make any changes, then it returns to the House of Commons where the MPs almost always revert them.

• [1] Identity Cards Bill

The majority voted to reverse the change made to the Identity Cards Bill by the House of Lords, which had replaced the word "must" with "may, if he chooses" in the following section

Where an individual applies for a designated document he must either apply to be entered in the National ID Register or, if he is already entered, confirm and correct the contents of his entry.[1]

• [1] Clause 5(2) of the Identity Cards Bill.
• [2] Division 58 of 18 October 2005.

Lords amendment: No. 22.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.-[Joan Ryan.]

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 259.

The majority of MPs voted to take out^[1] a provision inserted by the House of Lords^[2] into the Identity Cards Bill which said:^[3]

• Before the Identity Cards laws can be enforced, the Government must publish a detailed report stating all the costs of the system since 2004 and a cost estimate by year for the next ten years, and a statement of the expected benefits of the system.

The minister argued that making these costs available "would be prejudicial to securing the best value from the use of public money".^[4]

• [1] Andy Burnham MP, House of Commons, 13 February 2006
• [2] Identity Cards Bill - Report of Costs and Benefits, House of Lords, 16 January 2006
• [3] Commencement: Report on costs and benefits, Identity Cards Bill, Clause 44
• [4] Andy Burnham MP, House of Commons, 13 February 2006

Lords amendment: No. 47.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.-[Joan Ryan.]

The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 257.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 48, 50 and 51 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 3.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.-[Joan Ryan.]

The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 257.

The majority of MPs voted to reject^[1] the change to the Identity Cards Bill by the House of Lords^[2] which would make the application for an ID Card voluntary when obtaining a "designated document" such as a passport.

• [1] Charles Clarke MP, House of Commons, 13 March 2006
• [2] Identity Cards Bill - Voluntary registration when applying for a passport - insisted, House of Lords, 6 March 2006

I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 16 and 22, and proposes the Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof.

The amendments are technical amendments to clause 8, making it clear that an application for an identity card must include or accompany one to be entered on the national identity register. We have already had one debate on the Lords amendments this week, on Monday 13 March, when the House rejected them for the second time. However, their lordships have again insisted on their amendments to remove the requirement for anyone obtaining a designated document such as a passport to register and be issued with an identity card.

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.

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Lords are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.