I still have grave reservations about the infringement of the principle involved.
The Bill will mean that some people will be affected by the compulsory arrangements, while others will be covered by the framework of the provisions that the hon. Gentleman has just described. I belong to yet another group of people, as I have just applied for a new passport and driving licence to replace documents that were stolen. It appears that I would be outside the arrangements, either way. The provisions in the Bill deal with terrorism and other very important matters, so it is invidious that certain elements of the population will be covered by the proposed arrangements, and that others will not.
I end by saying that, for me, the bottom line is that the Government’s proposals amount to an unsatisfactory and hybrid compulsory arrangement that we ought to reject. In the House of Lords, the question of the Salisbury convention was disposed of by Baroness Anelay, and the Home Secretary did not mention it again today. A principle of huge constitutional importance lies at the heart of the Bill. I shall be voting against the proposals, as I believe that they should be resisted at all costs.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
William Cash
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 21 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
444 c196 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:57:52 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_310712
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_310712
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_310712