I am sorry, but this is a one-hour debate. I consider myself lucky to have caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I want to make my points.
The argument put by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the passport is not really compulsory has been widely mocked by people on the other side of the argument, but they must address the argument that if passports are compulsory they are surely just as objectionable as ID cards. The ID card is no more than a passport to public services. It is a different form of passport, to be used in a different context. When someone wishes to obtain a benefit or open a bank account, they will not need to take their passport, which is a bulky document, because they will be able to use their ID card. It will work exactly the same as a passport does when crossing international borders. It will be a domestic passport and I do not understand why people object to one, but not the other.
At the heart of this debate lies deep confusion about the words voluntary and compulsory. If people are prepared to go along with Lord Armstrong’s approach and accept that the important aspect is not the card but the register, we can all find common ground on which to agree.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Martin Linton
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 29 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
444 c888 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 21:57:01 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_313373
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_313373
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_313373