Report - Guardian

126 The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005carry ID, though when stopped they could be asked to produce it at a police stationwithin two days. In the case of Willcock v Muckle, Mr Willcock refused to go to thepolice station with his ID card. By the time of Willcock’s refusal to comply, thepurposes for the scheme had extended from the original 3 to 39, including theprevention of bigamous marriages. 336The Government has made frequent claims that the reason for implementing identitycards in the UK is that the police have requested it. The Police Federation informed theHome Affairs Committee that in calling for identity cards, the police are also asking forthe power to compel production:“Stop and Search procedures will be greatly improved following theintroduction of identity cards.”Similarly, if the aim of the card is to combat illegal immigration, it must be combinedwith a stop and search component if it is to be effective. It must also be compulsory tohave the card in order to allow for immigration checks at work. If the Government istruly aiming to combat illegal immigration, then it will eventually have to introduceproduction powers. In order to meet its legislative goals, the law will have to bechanged, ‘ramped up’, to a compulsory regime.During the House of Commons Debates on Monday 20 th December 2004 on the topic ofthe Identity Cards Bill, the Home Secretary was questioned by the Conservative MP,Francis Maude, on this exact issue.“Mr. Maude: The suspicion that many of us have and the reason whywe feel that the police are so enthusiastic about this is that it is anincremental process. First, there will be a voluntary scheme.Gradually, as the money will have been spent on it, it can then beargued that the only way of getting value for that money is byintroducing compulsion, which will then mean carrying the card at alltimes. It is a salami-slicing process, which is why so many people arevery suspicious about it. ”“Mr. Clarke: I have no sympathy with the “thin end of the wedge”argument. People may have argued when national registration ofbirths was introduced in 1837 that they would at some time arrive in asociety in which everybody operated in a “1984” type of world. Thatis nonsense; it simply has no substance.” 337There is some substance to Mr Maude’s argument: Studies demonstrate that‘compulsion by stealth’ is a likely consequence. 338 Concerns regarding function creep336 ‘Supplementary memorandum by the Information Commissioner (VOT 23(b))’, submitted to the SelectCommittee on Constitutional Affairs,http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmodpm/243/243we28.htm337 Hansard, House of Commons debate, December 20, 2004.338 ‘POLICING THE COMMUNITY: The Impact of National Identity Cards in the European Union’, Adrian Beckand Kate Broadhurst (Scarman Centre for the Study of Public Order), 1998, published in the Journal of EuropeanMigration Studies.