division_name: Identity Cards Bill
motion: <p class="" pid="a.1941.3/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="a.1941.3/2" pwmotiontext="yes">The discussion is an important milestone in the lengthy dialogue that the country has had on identity cards. The debate is of long standing, but it has increased in intensity in the aftermath of the terrorist atrocities in the United States on <phrase class="date" code="2001-09-11">11 September 2001</phrase>. However, the Bill needs to be considered on broader issues than matters of national security alone.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="a.1977.0/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a.1977.0/2" pwmotiontext="yes">"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."</p>
  
  <p pid="a.2020.4/1" pwmotiontext="yes"><i>Question put,</i> That the amendment be made:&#8212;</p>
  
  <p pid="a.2020.4/2" pwmotiontext="yes"><i>The House divided:</i> Ayes 93, Noes 306.</p>