Third Reading
18 Oct 2005 : Column 760

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway) (Lab): 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.

Mr. Love: I am following my hon. and learned Friend's argument closely. Does he agree that the most insidious aspect of what he is discussing is that someone will have to decide whether to fine or even imprison that person? That will be the acid test, but does he agree that that is a test too far for a Labour Government?

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Yes, indeed. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, as I was going to become a little more serious and make precisely that point. I would have to tell my constituent that he could be fined or sent to prison, at which point I would be looked at with complete disbelief—that in the 21st century we have passed a law that requires our citizens to comply on pain of fine or imprisonment. I would also point out that this is not even the worst part of the Bill, but an exemplification of what lies behind it. I would have to point out that when they have had their heads measured and their eyes photographed, they will then form part of a massive registration process, to which they have no access or control. I will explain that that was why I voted against the Bill.

Martin Salter (Reading, West) (Lab): I always enjoy hearing my hon. and learned Friend's oratory, but to develop his theme of explaining his glorious vote against the Bill to his constituents, did he make it clear to them at the election—I have seen some of his election publicity and it was very good—that, although he was standing on the Labour party manifesto, which included a pledge to introduce this Bill, he was personally opposed to it and would vote against it?

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I am pleased to answer that question. The answer is yes, I did. Neither was it the only part of the Labour manifesto that I told my constituents I was not standing on. I had pared it down quite thin by the end of the campaign. What I will be able to say to my constituents—it may mean that I will get re-elected, despite the fact that I will be standing on a Labour ticket—is that I voted against what I considered to be the most illiberal piece of legislation that the House has been asked to pass for half a century and quite possibly—pace the Bill on terrorism—into the foreseeable future. I strongly urge hon. Members to join me in the Lobby tonight in order to bring to an end this attempt to visit such illiberalism on our people.