| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mark Oaten (Winchester): I thank the Home Secretary for advance notice of his statement, although the contents would, frankly, have been no surprise to anyone, because he seems determined to push ahead with ID cards despite considerable opposition from his own party. As was not the case with the official Opposition, I want to make the Liberal Democrat position crystal clear: we are fundamentally opposed to ID cards.
The Home Secretary plans a stage-by-stage approach. Can he confirm that he will review each stage, and that if the changes to passports and driving licences that he plans result in major difficulties, he will abandon his plans to move ahead with ID cards? He has been able to provide us with the cost to individuals of ID cards, but can he give a commitment today on the Floor of the House that the new passports will not increase in cost for individuals? He has great faith in the use of biometrics, but can he confirm that he has no plans to introduce ID cards without biometrics? On ID cards themselves, does he acknowledge the problems surrounding the falsification of cards and the false sense of security that can be created in respect of terrorism?
Finally, can the Home Secretary provide information on the costs to Government of the initial phase that he is planning and the projected costs of introducing ID cards? Does he not recognise that the billions of pounds involved in the ID card project would be much better spent on providing more police in this country to make our streets safer and tackle crime? That is what the public want—not a card that will do nothing to tackle fraud or terrorism.
Mr. Blunkett: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post. As applies to all Liberal Democrats, the freedom to change one's mind comes frequently and often—and that applies to ID cards. The hon. Gentleman, now representing the Liberal Democrats, was in favour of ID cards when he voted in favour of a ten-minute Bill less than a year ago. He is certainly, in his own words, "fundamentally opposed": he is fundamentally opposed to anything that gets in his opportunist way. That is what it is all about.
Mr. Oaten: Answer the question.
Mr. Blunkett: So let us deal with the questions. Will we refuse to increase the charge for new passports? How
could we possibly say here, now, that there will be no new charges for new biometric passports in the future? What a very silly hon. Gentleman. Of course we cannot give such a guarantee, but the real issue is whether the Liberal Democrats want to block the introduction of biometrics in passports. If that happened, how on earth would we be able to deal with the American situation that I outlined, and the development—just beginning in the Schengen countries—of biometric visas and ID cards? I thought that the Liberal Democrats were in favour of Schengen and Europe-wide developments—or is that another fundamental principle that they have abandoned this afternoon?No, we will not introduce non-biometric ID cards. That was what the hon. Gentleman asked me. Yes, we will be able to deal with falsification. The creation of a database on which the specific identifier will be held will prevent people from being able to duplicate identities, or to pretend to have someone else's identity, because it will be possible to check that against the database.
The hon. Gentleman asked about initial costs. We have estimated total set-up costs and revenue over the first three years at around £36 million, £60 million and £90 million, respectively. Finally, he asked whether it would not be better to spend the money on more police. I thought that the Liberal Democrats were mounting a campaign claiming that council taxes were far too high. I thought that they were preparing for next year, when they would say that local councils should not raise too much money, and that central Government should meet more in the way of costs. The charge under debate will be met by each person who receives a card for a service from which he or she will benefit.
Is that cost to be met through national or local taxation, according to the Liberal Democrats? How will they explain to electors that money raised through a greater charge on the council tax is to be diverted to pay for the biometric ID, passport or driving licence, and that it will not be used to pay for local policing? Of course they do not know how they will explain that, as they are totally confused and muddled.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is now time for questions from Back-Bench Members. I must inform the House that hon. Members must ask only supplementary questions, and that they must keep their questions brief.
Mr. John Denham (Southampton, Itchen): I can tell my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the Home Affairs Committee agreed this morning to hold an inquiry into all aspects of the scheme, including the practicalities of the draft legislation. However, does he agree that there is an issue of principle confronting Parliament? We wish to live in a world where millions of people can move in and out of the country every week, for work, business and leisure. At the same time, we want to ensure that valuable public services—education, health, the benefits system and housing—are available only to those who are entitled to them, and that those who work here meet their obligations to pay tax and national insurance. Is not the issue of principle that there must be an effective system of personal
identification? That would ensure that people were free to travel, and that individuals had clear entitlements and obligations.
Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. That is precisely the issue that the rest of the developed world is addressing. We must not be left behind, so that is why we acting today to ensure that we address the matter openly and sensibly.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): Will the Home Secretary accept that the latest technology must be used if the new identity cards are introduced, and that complaints about biometric developments are beside the point? However, both history and logic tell us that an effective system requires that carrying an identity card is compulsory for everyone. Is not that the principle with which he must come to grips—whether he is prepared to breach people's civil liberties and make carrying the card compulsory?
Mr. Blunkett: On his first question, the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right: biometrics are going to be with us, with or without ID cards. On his second question, the Government have accepted the principle that he outlined, and we are clear that to achieve the full effect—on illegal working and the illegal use of free public services—we would have to move to compulsion. I accept that.
Andrew Bennett (Denton and Reddish): Does my right hon. Friend accept that he is naive if he expects the Home Office to be able to introduce this card without major problems arising, given its track record? Is not he naive also in thinking that criminals will not find a way to subvert the system? Is not the fundamental problem that carrying a card must be made compulsory, and that people will have to have it with them at all times? Otherwise, it will not deliver all the benefits that he hopes for.
Mr. Blunkett: I do not accept my hon. Friend's final point—not least because it will be possible to reference the identifiers against the ID base, without using the card. That will be a technological change for the future.
My hon. Friend spoke about the problems involved in introducing the card, but every Department—not least my own—faces a challenge when introducing and developing technology. However, it should be noted that, although the UK Passport Service faced huge difficulties, the satisfaction rate that it achieves is now 99 per cent. Also, we are turning around work permits in 24 hours. So there is hope for the Government, and it is possible for public service to work. We intend to make sure that it can work.
On my hon. Friend's second question, of course organised criminals will attempt to duplicate the cards fraudulently. However, it will be a major challenge to duplicate the irises of people's eyes, or all three biometric identifiers. Any Government who do not believe that they should take on and defeat those people are desperate and despairing.
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden): Will the Home Secretary confirm that all asylum seekers already must have an identity document, that all have been
fingerprinted since July 1993, and that no illegal immigrant can obtain benefits or work legally without a unique national insurance number? To get such a number, people need to claim asylum, and present the relevant documents. The Home Secretary does not require anyone to carry the documents to which I have referred, so how will extending the requirement to possess an ID card to British citizens help to control illegal immigration one iota?
Mr. Blunkett: I can certainly confirm that I introduced the asylum registration card for asylum seekers, but I must contradict the right hon. Gentleman on one point: from 2000, all asylum seekers who presented themselves to the authorities were fingerprinted, but the fingerprinting facility was not automatically available from 1993 onwards.
I can confirm too that our scheme will catch illegal residents, immigrants and workers. I did not mention asylum seekers. The ones who will be caught will not be able to identify themselves; if they try, however, it will be possible to show that the relevant identifier is not present in the database.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |