| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gwyn Prosser (Dover): Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Dover, on this side of the channel, are overwhelmingly in favour of compulsory identity cards? More important, police and immigration officers in France, on the other side of the channel, cite Britain's lack of an ID regime as the primary pull factor that attracts illegal immigration over here.
Mr. Blunkett: I can confirm entirely that, whenever Britain raises the issue of the pull factor on illegal migration or asylum, other countries in Europe point decisively to the fact that we do not have an ID card scheme. That is the experience of previous Governments too. Our scheme will be materially different from, and much more secure than, the schemes that operate in Europe at present. To make their systems more secure, other countries are moving towards the provisions that we have set out today—namely, the use of specific identifiers.
Lady Hermon (North Down): I may not be exactly a David Trimble lookalike, but I can say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), that Ulster Unionist Members support ID cards—at least those of us who take the party Whip do. I can say that because no one else is here.
May I remind the Home Secretary that long hours were spent on the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, which introduced electoral identity cards in Northern Ireland, because thousands of people, especially elderly women, did not have driving licences or passports? Will the Home Secretary, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, include electoral identity cards in the biometric technology?
Mr. Blunkett: First, may I say that the hon. Lady looks fine from where I am standing?
I shall talk to the Deputy Prime Minister about the hon. Lady's proposal as it has wider implications, but I think she is right to say that there should be links to electoral registration. That would be very welcome indeed.
Mr. Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green): I am a convert to the idea so I understand that people may have anxieties. My constituents tell me that they do not want an excessive charge, but they are fed up with the excessive charges made on them at present due to people who illegally use our public services and put extra strain on the police and security forces. Is not that what we need to tackle?
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. His comments are reinforced by an hon. Member who told me at the last Home Office questions that
- "taxpayers have an equal right to be able to ascertain the identities of those citizens who wish to claim benefits . . . I wish him well."—[Official Report, 27 October 2003; Vol. 412, c. 18.]
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): While I acknowledge that there may be policing and other benefits from identity cards, I am troubled by the civil rights implications. Does the Home Secretary understand that many of us suspect that in order to make the policy effective he will require the compulsory carriage of the card at all times and the production of the card to a police officer, and that he will have to give police officers the right to arrest in the event of non-production? Surely, that will be sus writ large, with all the associated abuses and problems, so will the Home Secretary give the House a guarantee that the requirements that I have just mentioned will not be incorporated in his proposals?
Mr. Blunkett: Such requirements will not be incorporated because it is not necessary. The police have told us that if they suspect that someone is undertaking something that is an arrestable offence, they would require proof of identity. If the person could not prove their identity, the police would of course apprehend them and would try to find out their true identity. The point of the card is not the card itself, but that it offers an authorised method of proving true and verifiable identity. That is at the root of what we are trying to do.
Mr. Kevin Hughes (Doncaster, North): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Is he aware that there is a great deal of support for his proposals, not least from members of the Labour party? In a survey that I made recently of Labour party members in my constituency, 92 per cent. were in favour of the proposals. Their message to me and my message to my right hon. Friend is, "Get on with it as soon as possible".
Mr. Blunkett: I always feel better when I know that I have the Labour party behind me.
Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion): Now that the Government have come clean about this identity tax—a poll tax to end all poll taxes—is not it clear that one piece of identity fraud has been revealed: the fraud that the Labour party is the party of civil liberties, personal freedom and the rights of individuals in this country? If the Government go ahead with their proposals and make them compulsory, what guarantees of civil liberty will we have? Will we have a written constitution? Will
we have a right of access to personal information held about us by the Government? Will we have the right to privacy? Those questions need to be answered before we tackle compulsion for ID cards.
Mr. Blunkett: If it were heat not light that we wanted to emerge from the Welsh nationalists, we should all be well away.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is clear. As I indicated, Parliament will lay down what will be on the chip and on the database. Parliament will determine the civil liberties protections. I have already spelled out the fact that we do not expect the chip or the database to hold more information than is already required for passports and driving licences. One would have to be particularly wild to suggest that passports and driving licences have taken away people's liberties—[Hon. Members: "He is wild".] Yes, my hon. Friends are probably right.
Tony Wright (Cannock Chase): I recently discovered my identity card, which was issued in 1948, and feel that I was neither more nor less free then than I am now. Is not a lot of nonsense talked about the civil liberties side of the matter? The only issue that really matters is whether the system will work, and for it to work it will have to be compulsory. Surely that is not an add-on extra; it is integral to the scheme.
Mr. Blunkett: That is precisely why I sought the agreement of the Cabinet to the principle, and that agreement was secured. I agree with my hon. Friend. After all, only a few months ago, Frederick Forsyth, whom I respect as a writer although not as a political thinker, and I both had our identities stolen. In my case, bizarrely, it was so that the BBC could demonstrate that it could obtain a driving licence in my name. Well, good luck.
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills): Did I understand the Home Secretary correctly when he said that someone who did not produce a card would be taken, under compulsion, to the police station? It seems logical. But what about the millions of mothers on the school run, for example, who pick up primary school children? If they fail to carry their card, will they be taken to the police station? These proposals hit at—
Mr. Shepherd: No, no, Home Secretary.
The proposals hit at the very sense of liberty of British citizens who have the freedom to move around without being impeded in perfectly lawful tasks.
Mr. Blunkett: I can definitely, definitely confirm that picking one's child up from school is not an arrestable offence, nor will it require people to carry the card or to present it—as long as the teachers know which child they are handing over to which parent.
David Winnick (Walsall, North): I, for one, welcome the Cabinet discussion that took place; it was a good thing for the democratic process. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that those of us who strenuously
oppose the proposals do not believe that an identity card will bring about what he has been describing? If it would do so, I should be willing to change my mind, especially in respect of terrorism. I hoped that the scheme would be dropped, but as it has not been I accept that this is the best possible compromise until—shall we say?—another time.
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for the qualified support of my hon. Friend. There are people who genuinely disagree with the whole principle as regards where we are going—even on biometrics. There are those who disagree with the previous scheme, which did not include biometrics, identifiers and safeguards. I believe that my hon. Friend was opposed to the latter scheme and I hope eventually to be able to win him over.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): The Home Secretary is setting great store by the value of biometrics, but what evidence is there that criminal gangs and sophisticated terrorists will not get ahead of the technology and produce workable forgeries that will render this oppressive exercise both expensive and pointless?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |