Home Page

Column 235

Oral Questions

3.30 pm

Madam Speaker : On 23 February the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) raised a point of order asking whether it would be possible for the House as a whole to be informed which oral questions were to be grouped. This has been examined by the Procedure Committee in its fifth report, which was published last week. The Committee recommended that a provisional list, not only of groupings of oral questions but of questions unstarred or withdrawn, should be placed in a Division Lobby before the House sits. I propose to implement this recommendation.

Accordingly, with effect from the beginning of next week, a typed list of questions grouped, unstarred or withdrawn before 12 noon will be placed in the No Lobby by 1 o'clock. I would stress that this list can only be provisional since it is, of course, possible to unstar or withdraw a question right up until the time it is called. Nevertheless, I hope that this new arrangement will be of assistance to hon. Members.

Points of Order

3.31 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Madam Speaker, may I raise a point of order of which I have given your Office notice, namely, whether the term Lord Haw-Haw is an acceptable parliamentary term as applied to those with whom one has a difference of opinion ?

Madam Speaker : I try to deal with matters as they arise and not to allow contention to run into the following day. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I do not consider that that is a parliamentary term which should be used in the House. I expect Members to exercise good temper in their exchanges here and to use moderate language in the Chamber. I deprecate what was said yesterday in the exchange to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your protection once again for Back Benchers against the arrogance of Ministers.

This morning, in Manchester, the Minister for Roads and Traffic made an announcement about my constituency. I was told the detail of that announcement by the press. Last night the press was informed and this morning the rest of the media were informed. Indeed, one Conservative Member of Parliament was informed this morning. I received notification at 12 o'clock. I believe that that is outrageous and that when one Back Bencher is treated in such a way, the whole House is treated in such a way. I seek your protection for all Back Benchers.

Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman knows that I am concerned to ensure that the House as a whole is informed when important statements are made. Of course, it is for Ministers to decide whether they do that from the Dispatch Box or by means of a written answer. In my view, if the announcement affected the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he should certainly have been informed before the media were informed.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following your helpful

Column 236

announcement about questions--I realise that this is a matter partly for you and partly for the Procedure Committee--may I suggest that the final helpful step, in the age of technology when we have annunciators, would be to relay the information to the House as and when questions are withdrawn during the day, even up to 2.15 or 2.30 pm ?

Madam Speaker : That would not be as easy as it sounds, but I understand that the matter is being looked into.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there any way in which we can thank the servants of this House and the other staff who have struggled in today, in defiance of the rail strike ?

Madam Speaker : That is certainly not a point of order. I am sure that Members have also struggled in, and I am happy to see so many of them here.

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understood that, when Front-Bench spokesmen visited one's constituency, it was normally a courtesy to write to the hon. Member concerned. Will you rule on the visits of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to our constituencies without affording us the courtesy that the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) requires ?

Madam Speaker : Irrespective of whether they are Front-Bench or Back -Bench Members, when one Member visits another's constituency, it is a courtesy to tell that Member that he or she will be there.

Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This morning, the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee published a report condemning the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for refusing to allow it to commission a confidential attitude survey of civil servants. Will you rule on whether the Minister has any right to refuse to allow it to carry out such a survey ? The Select Committee is entitled to summon the same civil servants to give evidence before it, if it so wishes, but is apparently not permitted to write to them.

As both Departments of State and trade unions frequently carry out surveys of their staff and members--on their morale and attitudes--why should not a Select Committee of this House be empowered to carry out exactly the same type of survey when it is strictly relevant to its functions ? Is not that clearly an arbitrary abuse of power by the Minister to cover his embarrassment ? Will you rule on whether an action of that type is a breach of the privilege of this House ?

Madam Speaker : If the hon. Gentleman is contending that a breach of privilege has taken place, he must write to me. I was prepared to deal with his point of order, but now that he has raised an issue of privilege I must ask him to send me the full details in writing.

Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker

Madam Speaker : There can hardly be anything further as I now have a matter of privilege to deal with. If the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) writes to me, I will deal with the matter as one of privilege.

Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A moment ago you said that it was

Column 237

a courtesy for hon. Members visiting other constituencies to write to the Member concerned. When you said so, I heard an Opposition Member--I am not sure who it was--say, "No way." Do you think that the House should be doing anything to enforce that, and perhaps you could advise me

Madam Speaker : Order. I am not in favour of a great many rules and regulations and of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. I have just celebrated 21 years in this House-- [Hon. Members :-- "Hear, hear".] Whenever I have visited another Member's constituency--no matter what party he or she belongs to--I have let that Member know. That is a good standard, and I would like other Members to follow that example.

Mr. Riddick rose--

Madam Speaker : That is all I have to say on the matter.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 8 JULY -- Members successful in the ballot were :

Ms Joyce Quin

Mr. Michael Stephen

Mr. Peter Hain


Contaminated Land (Remediation)


Mr. Robert Ainsworth, supported by Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Ms Estelle Morris, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Ms Anne Coffey, Mr. Robert Litherland, Mr. George Howarth and Mr. Harry Barnes, presented a Bill to make provision for the improved clean-up of contaminated land : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

Column 238

Identity Cards

3.38 pm

Mr. Harold Elletson (Blackpool, North) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a national identity card scheme, and for connected purposes.

I congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your 21st anniversary. There is overwhelming public support for the idea of a national identity card. Millions of people were accustomed to carrying national registration cards before their abolition in 1952, and the citizens of most other European democracies carry national identity cards. In this country today, millions of people possess a range of different cards which identify them for a variety of purposes. There is nothing alien, sinister or fundamentally un- British about the concept of an identity card.

The Bill is very simple, and merely requires the Government to co-ordinate a national identity card scheme. It does not state that possession of a national identity card should be compulsory or even specify the circumstances in which its possession would be required, although I shall suggest some areas where that would not be unreasonable.

A national identity card scheme could be entirely self-financing and, far from being a threat to civil liberties, would be positive enhancement of them. The Government currently issue a number of identity documents to individual citizens for various purposes. Apart from the passport--which, incidentally, is self-financing--the most obvious of those is the driving licence, which is issued to some 32 million people. It contains a large amount of personal information, but as proof of the identity of the bearer it is virtually useless, and it is often used fraudulently in mainland Britain.

In Northern Ireland--where the driving licence contains a photograph--their fraudulent use is much less widespread. It is not surprising that the Government are actively considering the inclusion of photographs and possibly also fingerprints in such documents. After all, there seems to be little point in issuing documents which purport to identify the bearer if they are patently unable to do so. There is currently a similar need to update and replace the British visitors passport, as the Home Affairs Select Committee recently recommended and as has been recently demonstrated by one of our EC partners, Spain, which has said that it will no longer recognise it in the future. It seems clear that there is a window of opportunity for the Government to use new technology to create an identity card which would be of enormous value to individual citizens, the Government and private sector organisations.

I am sure that what we need, and what would catch the public's imagination, is a national identity card based on smart card technology. Smart cards are extremely difficult to forge. They are the size of a credit card, but can store images of palm prints, fingerprints, eye retina patterns and photographs, as well as a large volume of other information. They can also ensure that the data is separated and can be accessed only by a series of different codes. It would thus be possible that an identity card, driving licence or passport could also contain entirely separate banking, medical and social security information if, and only if, an individual chose to store it there. The advantage

Column 239

obviously would be that, instead of carrying a wallet full of cards, an individual need carry only one. It would be a secure and convenient system which would be much more difficult to use fraudulently, and would in fact soon virtually wipe out credit card fraud and theft.

I am surprised that Opposition Members apparently appear intent on opposing the motion, since it is primarily designed to stamp out credit card fraud and theft. That is not an insignificant consideration because it is primarily as a means of combating fraud, rather than other types of crime, that a national identity card scheme is necessary. The police currently admit privately that more than 200,000 plastic cards are lost or stolen every week. Card fraud cost banks £192 million in 1992, which is three times as much as in 1989.

Many banks are now considering the possibility of introducing laser-etched photographs into their cards. The Royal Bank of Scotland recently had a pilot scheme which showed that it was a highly effective way of tackling fraud. The scheme cut the bank's losses through fraud by 98.9 per cent. in 1993. I believe that the Government should now be working with the banks to develop an identity card scheme which would be mutually beneficial.

There is no doubt that the Government also are losing billions of pounds every year through fraud of one sort or another, much of it due to false identity. Social security fraud costs the taxpayer £4 billion every year. The savings which the Benefits Agency was recently able to achieve of £558 million in 1992-93 and £654 million in 1993-94 are merely the tip of the iceberg. It is hardly surprising that the Government are losing so much, given that only recently it was revealed that unemployment benefit had been successfully claimed by M. Mouse, D. Duck, S. Stallone and, I believe, J. Major. It is clearly nonsensical that that sort of widespread organised fraud, in both public and private sectors, should take place largely because of false identities. Credit and cheque-card fraud should be dealt with alongside social security fraud, by the Government in partnership with the banks. The Government should insist that all benefit claimants provide proper proof of identity by participating in a recognised national identity card scheme. Ordinary citizens should be able to rely on a secure banking system that protects them from forgery and fraud. There is no infringement of civil liberties in that ; it is simple common sense. Decent people are fed up with paying criminals to defraud the system, and it is time that we stopped doing so.

While I am sure that the major advantage of a national identity card scheme would be the elimination of fraud, it would have other significant benefits, even if it were purely voluntary. For example, landlords would be able effectively to check the identity of short-term tenants, thus contributing significantly to the prevention of terrorism.

I do not accept that the costs need be prohibitive. In fact, I am sure that the scheme would be self-financing--not just because of the well-known generosity of the clearing banks, which might be expected to participate, but because of the substantial savings to the Treasury that would be achieved.

The Bill is not about restricting the freedom of the individual ; it is about enhancing it. I do not see how anyone, particularly Opposition Members, can object to a voluntary scheme of this type on "civil liberties" grounds.

Column 240

After all, which of us here would be prepared to stand up and say that he would fight for the crimes of the fraudster to go undetected, or allow the terrorist to continue to go about his murderous business hidden behind a cloak of false identity for fear of abusing his civil liberties ? Our concern should be not with the civil liberties of fraudsters and terrorists, but with their victims ; not with the rights of con men and criminals, but with the security of decent, law- abiding people.

We are now faced with the need to tackle crime, fraud and abuse of trust, not because the Government wish to monitor or limit the movement of our citizens but because criminals have impinged on our natural assumption that all our citizens are decent and honest. Unlike the infamous three-card trick, in which the con man always wins, this one card--a national card-- will ensure that the winner is the decent British citizen.

3.47 pm

Mr. John Spellar (Warley, West) : I shall be brief, because I do not want to impinge on the time allowed for the important debate that follows ; nor, however, do I want the complacent statements of the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) to go unanswered. The hon. Gentleman slipped very easily into talking of a voluntary scheme, and trying to avoid the costs of a national identity card scheme. According to an answer given to me by his colleagues in the Home Office, setting up such a system would cost £475 million, while the annual cost of running it would be between £50 million and £100 million. Those are huge sums, and I am sure that we can all think of much better ways of spending the money.

Many of the arguments being advanced about the ease of running such a scheme are similar to the arguments about the ease of running the community charge, or poll tax. We were told that that, too, would be a simple scheme that would commend itself to all concerned. What we encountered, however, was one of the problems that any identity card scheme would pose. In reply to a question to the Department of the Environment, I was told that there was a 34 per cent. annual turnover in the community charge register across the country. When I checked with my own borough, Sandwell--a fairly stable community--I found that it had a 40 per cent. turnover. Then there are the inner London boroughs. Camden, for instance, has a 60 per cent. turnover-- and its turnover is not one of the highest. Those figures come from the Department of the Environment. That is the level of change that would take place, so many of the advantages of identifying and keeping track of people start to fall down.

The hon. Gentleman claimed that social security fraud would be a main target. He should have taken note of the words of a Minister in the other place, who said that the problem was not false identity but false statements of a person's circumstances. The hon. Gentleman mentioned terrorists. Another Minister said that he could not recall a terrorist offence that would not have taken place had people been required to carry identity cards. The same applies to burglary. I doubt whether the average burglar will pack his ID card when he goes out to commit an offence.

The proposed measure is a gimmick. It is an attempt by Conservative Members and the Government to reassure ordinary citizens that they are doing something about the problems that concern people so widely. Such matters can

Column 241

be dealt with in other ways. Further checks should be undertaken to deal with social security fraud and, on income tax, it would have helped if the Government had not encouraged the explosion of self-employment and the massive fraud that has taken place in exemption certificates-- [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman believes that income tax exemption certificates can be counterfeited, how can he not believe that identity cards could be duplicated, resulting in fraud ?

The Bill is no answer to dealing with many of those problems. It would be a leap in the dark and enormously expensive. That is why it should be opposed.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No.19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business) :

The House divided : Ayes 89, Noes 113.

Division No. 271] [3.51 pm


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Alton, David

Ashby, David

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Batiste, Spencer

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Brazier, Julian

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Budgen, Nicholas

Butcher, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Churchill, Mr

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Colvin, Michael

Day, Stephen

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Dicks, Terry

Dover, Den

Duncan, Alan

Dunn, Bob

Durant, Sir Anthony

Elletson, Harold

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Faber, David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Flynn, Paul

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Gallie, Phil

Garnier, Edward

Gorst, Sir John

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Hannam, Sir John

Harris, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Hawkins, Nick

Hendron, Dr Joe

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Johnston, Sir Russell

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Kilfedder, Sir James

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Lidington, David

Lynne, Ms Liz

Maitland, Lady Olga

Marland, Paul

Mates, Michael

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Pawsey, James

Porter, David (Waveney)

Rooker, Jeff

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Speed, Sir Keith

Spink, Dr Robert

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Stephen, Michael

Sumberg, David

Thomason, Roy

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Trimble, David

Tyler, Paul

Viggers, Peter

Next Section

  Home Page