AN SNP MP has blasted Tory plans to introduce voter ID laws as “total bollocks”.
Although such terms would often earn the MP a reprimand from the Speaker of the House for “unparliamentary language”, the SNP's Brendan O'Hara avoided any such repurcussions.
O’Hara, the SNP’s human rights spokesperson, used the term while outlining his opposition to the proposed plan to require identification at polling stations - which could cost around £120 million and disenfranchise more than two million people.
The Tory plans are touted as a solution to voter fraud at polling stations - for which just three people have been convicted in seven years.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson's voter ID bill 'dismantles democracy to keep Tories in power'
O’Hara said: “The Government has had ample opportunity to produce the evidence that says these proposals are a proportionate measure to deal with an identified problem, and they haven’t. The reason they haven’t is that there is absolutely no evidence for them to produce.
“As one leading albeit unelected Scottish politician recently said, and I quote: ‘They can’t cite any evidence of it because there is no evidence to cite. In terms of this particular part of the Queen’s speech [where voter ID plans were first announced] I think it is total bollocks.
“‘I think it is trying to give a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist and that makes politics as performance.’”
The SNP MP went on: “Now it’s not often I agree with former Scottish Conservative leader Baroness Davidson, or whatever her title is at the moment, but on this occasion she was absolutely spot on.
“So, in the absence of any evidence that voter ID is the answer to an identified problem, we can only conclude that for the party opposite the problem isn’t folk turning up at the polling station without photographic ID, the problem for the party opposite is that certain folk turn up at polling stations at all.”
Usually, the Speaker would call a point of order for unparliamentary language after an MP said "bollocks". However, Parly reported that O'Hara "was quoting someone else so it’s apparently in order".
Responding on Twitter, Labour MP Chris Bryant wrote: "Not normally. Quoting others isn’t normally an excuse in Erskine May. But he’s right."
Erksine May, a book named after its first author, now in its 25th edition and known as the "Bible of parliamentary procedure", agrees with Bryant.
Paragraph 21.21 states: "The Speaker will ... intervene in respect of other abusive and insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder ... Expressions will equally draw an intervention from the Chair when based on a quotation from elsewhere."
READ MORE: Campaigners warn Boris Johnson’s voter ID plan could impact on Scottish elections
O’Hara’s comments echoed that of Scottish Green MSP and minister Lorna Slater, who previously compared the voter ID bill to American gerrymandering, accusing the Tories of “dismantling democracy to keep themselves in power”.
The Elections Bill is currently going through its second reading in the House of Commons.
A Cabinet Office spokesperson said previously: "Stealing someone’s vote is stealing their voice and fraud in our elections is something we cannot allow room for. So we are preventing this from happening by requiring photographic identification.”
They added that any associated costs would be “worth paying to ensure our democratic process remains secure”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel