| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West): I beg leave to move amendment No. 57, standing in my name and that of a number of right hon. and hon. Friends.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to move the
amendment at this moment. If it were to be moved, it would be done separately after the others have been considered.
Mr. Madden: As the Minister said, the amendment is designed to block an important loophole that was first revealed in the book "The Day of the Jackal", whereby it is lawful and extremely easy for any person to obtain the birth certificate of any other person, living or dead, and to assume that person's identity.
The Government have expressed concern about the loophole--and expressed the intention to legislate to block the loophole--since 1990 and the publication of the White Paper "Registration: Proposals for Change", in which the idea of making personation more preventable was suggested. The White Paper made several recommendations to regularise procedures for obtaining birth certificates, which are contained in amendment No. 57; sadly, the Government have failed since 1990 to provide time for appropriate legislation to be brought before the House.
Action to make personation more difficult has become tangled up in the controversy concerning identity cards. The amendment gives the Government the opportunity to take the action that they say they wish to take to stop the ease with which people may acquire a birth certificate--and the identity--of someone else, either alive or dead. This matter has been of long-standing concern to hon. Members, and I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who has been campaigning on this issue for several years, and to the hon. Member for Ealing, North(Mr. Greenway), who has brought this matter to our attention in the past.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East(Mr. Kirkhope), reconsiders the Government's attitude to amendment No. 57. Birth certificates are specified in orders relating to the Bill as providing employers accused of employing illegal entrants with a defence. The amendment has three aims: first, in applying for a birth certificate, a person would have to complete a comprehensive application form; secondly, a person would have to state his or her relationship to the subject of the required certificate; and, thirdly, a person would have to state the purpose for which the certificate would be used.
These seem to be perfectly reasonable requests to be made of someone applying for a copy of a birth certificate. We have been waiting a long time for such legislation. I strongly urge the Minister--if he is unable to accept the amendment--to consider, in another place, coming forward with an appropriate vehicle to realise the intentions of amendment No. 57.
Mr. Kirkhope:
I have already stated that the Government are considering the position. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requires, but I acknowledge that there is a problem with birth certificates for these proceedings, as well as for agencies and organisations that rely on birth certificates as evidence, such as building societies, passport agencies and insurance companies. It is a problem of a general nature and the Government are examining it and are concerned to deal with it as soon as possible.
Mr. Madden:
The Minister is clearly reinforcing the case that urgent legislation must be introduced. He should
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North):
I identify with the hon. Gentleman's points because I have had a most distressing case in my constituency. People who are personated believe that their lives have been wrecked--as is the case for one of my constituents and, no doubt, for the constituents of other hon. Members. One of my constituents had the experience of someone going toSt. Catherine's house, getting access to her birth certificate, assuming her identity and undertaking all sorts of fraudulent activity.
My constituent had no legal means of addressing the situation. The person who committed the offence was taken to court, found guilty of gross and serious impersonation--and much worse--and sentenced to imprisonment for three months. She was released after six weeks and has continued to use the name of my constituent, who has since been through a pregnancy, which was not easy for her and which added to her distress. She is at the end of her tether and feels that nothing can be done.
Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr):
I have read about the situation affecting the constituent of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), and I feel for him. It is unbelievable that something like that can happen in this modern day. I support amendment No. 57. I have in my hand the birth certificate of a young girl named Jennifer, who was born in Birmingham at 6 am on 3 October 1967. I also have in my hand the death certificate of Jennifer, which is dated 4 October 1967. Jennifer and her twin did not survive more than 24 hours.
Hon. Members may not be surprised to learn that on 6 May 1988 a national insurance number was issued to Jennifer; on 5 December 1992 a British visitors passport was issued; and on 25 November 1993 a full British passport was issued. All the details were the same--the names of the parents, the name of the hospital of birth and the date of birth. For all intents and purposes, this person was Jennifer--who survived for less than 24 hours.
It is difficult to describe the distress suffered by the parents of Jennifer--who died almost 30 years ago--when a Home Office investigator knocked on their door, having tracked them down, to explain what had happened. I do not criticise the Home Office investigation unit. It
discovered this fraud as a result of a random check of one year's British visitor passport applications at one post office. The death certificate was discovered. It took quite a while to track down the now elderly couple, who were pensioners and who had had several more children. Thirty years after the twins had died, someone decided to impersonate Jennifer--someone claimed that she was Jennifer. She could not possibly claim to be the birth child of the couple, but she stuck it out for months before her true identity was discovered.
As a result of looking into this case, of contact with the Home Office and of parliamentary questions, I became aware of the White Paper. I had not been aware of the proposals; but when I looked at the detail, I was reminded that there had been a proposal to change the marriage laws so that people could get married in a submarine or somewhere. In answer to parliamentary questions, I was referred to the proposals in Command Paper 939. However, none of the parliamentary answers in 1995 said that the White Paper was dated 1990. Only when I examined it did I realise that it was six years old.
The Government have a problem: the White Paper, which followed a Green Paper, made it clear that they had taken on board the criticisms in the Green Paper. Paragraph 6.10 of the document states:
Paragraph 6.11 states:
It does not deny access to people wishing to check their historical family records. However, the procedures were tightened.
St. Catherine's house issues almost 250,000 certified birth certificates per year. In answer to a parliamentary question from me, the then Under-Secretary for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), replied:
I received another answer from the Department of Health on 31 March 1995. The then Under-Secretary said that the forms would be redesigned and that people applying atSt. Catherine's house would
It is possible--as I have proved more than once--to walk into St. Catherine's house, not fill in the form properly and still be given a certificate. I visited St. Catherine's house to check out the procedure a year ago and I went again yesterday and today. The application form currently in use does not conform with what the Under-Secretary told me on 31 March. The form does not require applicants to state their relationship to the person whose
birth certificate it is: they are simply asked whether they are applying for their own certificates. Applicants are not asked whether it is a family birth certificate.
I took up the matter with the Prime Minister last May. The Government have identified the problem: they know about "The Day of the Jackal" loophole. They commissioned a Green Paper, followed by a White Paper, to examine an issue that cannot be contentious in this place. Yet, six years later, there is no legislation. The Prime Minister wrote to me on 23 May last year to say that some of the measures to which I had alluded had been implemented. He continued:
I have been a Member of Parliament for nearly 22 years--it has been a privilege every day--but the last two parliamentary Sessions have been the lightest in legislative terms that I can recall. A short Bill--a private Member's Bill or a Government Bill--could deal with the matter. We could dispense with it in a few days. There is no problem: the snags have been ironed out already in the Green and the White Papers.
I cannot see why we do not send a signal to organised crime. It is not a case of one or two people playing around--although the hon. Member for Ealing, North has highlighted a particular difficulty. Organised crime is clearly involved. Procuring a birth certificate is only the beginning of creating a personality--I understand that it is described as creating a "legend". Although the birth certificate states that it cannot be used as proof of identity, no one takes any notice of that. If one offers a birth certificate along with other documents, one can get a national insurance number, open bank accounts and get one's name on the electoral register. People can create false personalities and cause mayhem. I cannot understand why the loophole has not been closed.
I shall give another example of a constituency case that was drawn to my attention only a few weeks ago. I made inquiries about a constituent who had been involved in some illegal activities and had been caught. I received a letter from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), which is pertinent to the thrust of the debate. I shall refer to my constituent as "Mr. A". The letter states:
That person was found guilty of fraud against the Department of Employment, and he got his job by offering a false birth certificate.
"In essence, the right to buy certified copies of events will be more tightly controlled".
"Statutory provision will be made for the issue of non-certified copies of entries in the recent records and, instead of the present entitlement to a certified copy, all applicants will be entitled to non-certified copies . . . However, those requiring certified copies will have to complete a more comprehensive application form resembling that for a passport. Applicants will be required to identify themselves, state their relationship to the subject . . . and the purpose . . . for which it is required. They will also be asked to give their address".
"In 1994 the Registrar General issued 245,961 full birth certificates".--[Official Report, 13 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 399.]
"also be required to state their relationship to the subject of the required certificate and the purpose for which the certificate was to be used . . . the application forms now in use by the Registrar General ask for this additional information, but applicants cannot, at present, be obliged to provide the answers".--[Official Report, 31 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 814.]
"It remains the Government's intention to introduce the necessary legislation to implement the remaining White Paper proposals, when Parliamentary time permits".
"Furthermore, Mr. A. was convicted on 28 March 1994 of three counts of theft and forgery and was sentenced to nine months in prison on each count to be served concurrently. He was arrested by police on 7 May 1993, having produced a British birth certificate that was not his in order to secure employment with the Department of Employment since 1990. Whilst so employed, he had obtained approximately £13,000."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |