Robin Wilton's esoterica

Here's a full transcript of the Queen's Speech. It doesn't mention identity documents, and it doesn't mention borders, immigration or citizenship.

The BBC's "At A Glance" summary of the next legislative programme does mention the "Borders, Immigration and Citizenship Bill", referring to border control measures, and the principle that 'failure to integrate' could slow down an immigrant's progress towards acknowledged citizenship. Similarly, over on the Home Office website, this UK Borders Agency page describes the Bill in terms of border control and processes for achieving integration and naturalisation.

Given all that, it's a little strange to hear some very specific concerns being raised about this Bill by UK human rights group Liberty. They describe a draft version of the legislation as sneaking compulsory ID cards in by the back door, saying that it increases the number of people who have the power to require individuals in the UK to produce a valid identity document if those individuals have ever entered the UK. Liberty point out that, as drafted, the law would include UK citizens who have left and re-entered the country. They also say that no suspicion of an offence is required to justify a demand to produce a valid identity document.

In other words, the law appears to be consistent with a peremptory power to demand that someone in the UK produce an identity document... something which proponents of the National Identity Scheme have consistently denied was in the legislative plan.

Presumably the folks at Liberty aren't just making this all up; presumably, therefore, there is a draft version of the Bill which says pretty much what they allege. If that's the case, two things strike me:

- First, it seems strange that the detail of the Bill should contain such far-reaching measures while the Bill itself is not even mentioned in the Queen's Speech, and the measures themselves are not mentioned in the owning department's published material.

- Second, if it really is not government policy that people in the UK sohuld have to produce an identity document on demand, it's bizarre that the Bill should be so loosely drafted as to make that a possible interpretation.

I've looked for a copy of the draft Bill, but haven't found one yet. If anyone knows where it can be found, please add a link via the Comments function...

I've just watched Michael Martin, Speaker of the House of Commons, make his statement to the House about the arrest last week of Damian Green MP. I think the most shocking aspect of his statement concerned the way in which the investigating police officers gained access to the Palace of Westminster and to Mr Green's office there.

It appears that the police did not have a warrant for that search, and did not inform the Serjeant at Arms that she was entitled to insist on one.

The Speaker's description of this episode creates a very shoddy impression: an impression of the police blagging their way into premises to conduct a search, when perhaps adherence to appropriate process would have raised legitimate objections to their proposed course of action. I wonder whether a police entry to an individual's home on the same basis would have resulted in the inadmissability of any evidence gathered as a result. It also, of course, raises the question of whether it is legally acceptable for one person (the Serjeant at Arms) to grant access not only to the Palace in general, but specifically to the office of an MP... or whether it would have been appropriate for the occupant of the office to have his consent sought.

That said, the Serjeant at Arms is responsible for security of the premises of the Palace of Westminster, and it reflects poorly on the execution of that role that its holder should not be aware of the rights she may exercise when granting or denying access.