Constitutional crisis?

The Register is suggesting that the debate over ID cards and a national identity register currently going on in the UK parliament could trigger a constitional crisis. The Lords traditionally give way eventually to the elected house, especially on matters that were part of manifesto commitments in General Elections – and Labour included the pledge to introduce ID cards in its manifesto. Game over, we might think. Except that there are signs that the Lords will use constitional arguments to oppose the Bill, most particularly to force the Government to reveal an actual budget for the scheme (rather than the numbers plucked apparently from the air we have at the moment) before they will allow it to proceed. However, the Government has been holding back on a great many costs over recent years, citing “commercial sensitivity” as though that was a constitional defence. It’s not, of course, and the peers may use this to force the Government to behave in an open way to actually tell us what they’re planning.

Update
The Guardian has a leader with their opinion on this issue:

The Lords are right. Unless parliament is given proper costings first, this bill must not go ahead. If the government goes ahead with its aim to reverse the new clause in the Commons, MPs should vote it down.

pax et bonum

Article posted at 12:55pm on 17 January 2006
Category: Politics, Struggling, General

I think there might potentially be trouble with Labour using the Parliament Act to force it through the Lords – they’ve done it before and it wouldn’t surprise me if they eventually did it again :-/

Sven () (URL)
10:56pm on 17 January 2006

The difference is that, this time, the Lords can claim a constitutional mandate to oppose amend the Bill to require disclosure of the costs. They can’t block the whole thing, but they can require this. At least, according to their interpretation of the situation :-)

It’ll be interesting to watch, either way.

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
11:16pm on 17 January 2006

I expect that they will eventually use the Parliament Act to force this through, and expect any requirements for proper costings or making it voluntary disappear when it returns to the Commons. They have no idea what it will cost, and would prefer to remain that way considering how much it is likely to cost. They have used the Parliament Act on much less important issues (e.g. Fox Hunting). However the Parliament act was originally intended that the heriditary chamber could not overrule the wishes of the elected, but New Labour have ‘reformed’ (with Tony deliberately making sure that it would not become an elected chamber). Doesn’t this mean that they think the Lords is in as good a state as they think it can get, so do they really still have the moral right to use the Parliament Act against the ‘reformed’ Lords?

chris () (URL)
11:49am on 18 January 2006