Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Robert Marshall-Andrews (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 18 October 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Identity Cards Bill.


Identity Cards Bill

I should like to spend a short time discussing the important amendment No. 5, which deals with the central vice and evil of the Bill—compulsion. There is no point debating the Bill without debating the issue of compulsion. It is in the Bill: it can be made law by secondary legislation and it can be introduced into law by various crafty devices that are already set out in the provisions. The British people have no idea what they will be required to do under the Bill if it becomes law. If they did, there would be no question of any opinion poll saying anything other than that they were totally, or nearly totally, against it. In the short time available, I want to put into historical context the issues raised by both Front-Bench spokesmen. Not since the Domesday book in 1068 have we seen anything like it. That was a system of registration put into effect by the Normans—or the new Normans, as I suspect they were known at the time. Not since then have the British people been required to attend, with their families, at a certain place at a certain time in order to have their heads measured and the colours of their eyes taken. To be fair, under the present Bill, people will not have to declare the number of livestock that they possess or the items of clothing that they wear. However, we should not get too excited, because under the terms of the secondary legislation, people could be forced to give any other information that the Secretary of State prescribes. I have to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there are many people in my constituency who simply will not do this. They will not do it—full stop. Some may do it and there are doubtless some that conform to the model citizen that new Labour imagines in the south-east of England. However, a very large number—I can see them in my mind’s eye as I speak—find it difficult enough to go 100 yd down the street to exercise their right to vote and they simply will not comply with the Bill under any circumstances. Social stress will be the result. I can picture one of my constituents talking to me in my surgery, saying, ““I have to go to Maidstone to have my head measured””. I will reply, ““Yes, you have”” and he will say, ““And she has to have her head measured as well””. I will say, ““Yes, indeed””. Pointing to his adolescent offspring, he will say, ““They have to have their heads measured as well”” and I will confirm that that is absolutely right. He will then say, ““Why did you vote for this Bill?”” I will then experience the glory of being able to say that I did not vote for it and that I voted against it at every conceivable opportunity. My constituent will want to know what will happen if they all refuse to have their heads measured. I will tell him that he will not be able to go to the public library, which will not upset him very much, but there will be other things that he will be unable to do.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
437 c760-1 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Biometrics Crime prevention Applications Costs Fraud Fees and charges Immigration controls Identity cards National identity register Proof of identity Passports Registration
Legislation
Identity Cards Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk