|
Mr. Hain: May I just clarify what the hon. Gentleman said? Benefits are a reserved matter, delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions. I think that the hon. Gentleman meant that the Assembly is considering whether access to public services that come under its remit should be subject to an identity card.
Mr. Llwyd: I stand corrected. The right hon. Gentleman is right, I meant public services. However, the Scottish Executive are also very unhappy about the measure—it does not carry a great deal of support from the devolved administrations; certainly not the wholehearted support that the Government expected.
If it is necessary to combat terrorism, and if identity cards are such a useful tool, what will happen to us in the 10 years or so that it will take fully to implement the scheme? Could the £3 billion or £5 billion not be put to better use? £3 billion would provide 60,000 extra police officers on the beat or 25 per cent. of the whole public spending bill for Wales for a year. That would be a better use of the money. The scheme would also require a national database. How confident can we be of the IT? I mentioned earlier that the Government's record is lamentable, as evidenced by the failure of the computers at the Child Support Agency, last week's failure at the Department for Work and Pensions, and other problems. Are we not heading for another costly and damaging IT disaster? And what would it be for?
Column Number: 32
Lembit Öpik: The Secretary of State for Wales said that IT systems around the world were not 100 per cent. right. If we had a 0.1 per cent. error rate, the identity cards of 60,000 people would contain incorrect data of some kind. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that would be bound to lead to injustices and would cause more problems than the card could possibly solve?
Mr. Llwyd: It will obviously create a great number of difficulties, and it will be costly for Departments that face court challenges and other such issues. It is a big problem. Even the most basic technology clearly does not exist.
Mr. Nick Ainger (West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab) indicated dissent.
Mr. Llwyd: The Whip can shake his head, but the Child Support Agency computer is about as useful as a pencil without a sharpener.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): Steady on!
Mr. Llwyd: Perhaps that was a bit strong—a rather pointed remark.
My point is that people who are far more aware of how things work than me have said that the computer technology has to be bang on. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire made a telling point—it takes just a small percentage to fail before we are in some difficulty.
One fascinating aspect of the debate is that I have yet to receive a definitive reason why we need ID cards to combat terrorism. I am still waiting for it, and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said that he was still waiting for it. Terrorists manufacture false passports, and I am afraid that they will be able to manufacture false ID cards as well. I hope that I am wrong, but there does not appear to be much doubt about that. The other justification referred to earlier was benefit fraud. About 5 per cent. of benefit fraud per annum involves identity, and that is being tackled, so I do not think that that justification is persuasive either.
Professor Michael Levy, a criminologist and expert on fraud at University College, Cardiff, has done some research on the question. In his opinion, ID cards are not a big factor in the reasons why prosecutions fail, and the idea that the police are unable to assess a person's identity is not plausible. He says:
''Identity cards are an irrelevance, a tough sound-bite that has no practical effect''.
ID cards have also led to racial tension with all the possible pernicious effects of the sus laws once again. I referred earlier to the Scarman Centre report of 1996, which examined the use of ID cards in European countries. It found that police checks were a significant source of tension for ethnic minority groups and that in Germany, the Netherlands and France, the police disproportionately stopped those groups. Already, in Britain in 2002, there has been cause for concern that while the number of white people stopped by police has fallen by 18 per cent., the number of black and ethnic minority people has increased by 4 per cent. Those statistics should be viewed very carefully.
Column Number: 33
Mr. Hain: I agree that we have to monitor the situation extremely carefully in terms of the impact on ethnic minority communities. The hon. Gentleman would expect me to say that. However, I want just to trace back the logic of his position and that of his coalition ally on this matter, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. Is he saying that biometric data, which will form the basis of the new ID card, should not apply to driving licences or passports? Is he basically adopting a Luddite attitude to all IT systems? Is that the new Plaid Cymru official policy?
Mr. Llwyd: The Plaid Cymru policy is that civil rights come before anything else. If we start to curtail civil rights, what kind of democracy will we have? After all is said and done, the Secretary of State's leader and the President of the United States of America bombed Iraq into accepting some form of democracy. How can he stand up and tell me that by curtailing civil rights in this state—
Mr. Hain: It is not going to curtail civil rights.
Mr. Llwyd: It will curtail civil rights in this state. How can the Secretary of State say that by doing that, he is contributing to a better form of democracy? If the risks from terrorism that he and the other spin doctors are claiming were genuine, and ID cards were a genuine answer, my view might be different. They are not, so it is not.
Mr. Hain: What about driving licences and passports?
Mr. Llwyd: We are talking not about driving licences but about ID cards. It is clouding the issue to throw in driving licences, and in any event not everyone applies for or wants a driving licence. In this instance, we are looking at subjecting people to being stopped day and night by some unworthy police officers. They are a small minority, but that occurs now and may well get worse. That would be divisive.
Lembit Öpik: On the point about technology, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is naïve in the extreme to delude oneself into thinking that organised criminals with enormous resources will not find a way round the ID card system? However attractive the system may seem to the Government, they need to recall the many times that we have been told that various documents, cards and other forms of information will be unforgeable, but that has turned out to be wrong.
Mr. Llwyd: That is right. Another unfortunate aspect is that organised crime and terrorism are usually extremely well financed. One can pay unscrupulous scientists to do anything one wants. We know about dirty bombs; some people will sell anything to anyone. That is a problem, of course, but I believe that ID cards are potentially an illiberal, expensive, unproven system that should have no place in our society. No matter how much rhetoric
Column Number: 34
we hear about terrorism and security, it will not strengthen the argument for ID cards. I hope that the measure will be defeated in due course.
11.19 am
Dr. Francis: I welcome the Queen's Speech, particularly the two all-Wales Bills, and the greater emphasis on work-life balance represented in the 10-year child care strategy and the proposal for an older people's commissioner in Wales. The creation of a commissioner relates strongly to the work with which I have been engaged in the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004, which received Royal Assent on 22 July.
The older people's commissioner would be the first in the world and would form, alongside the child care strategy, what I would call a carers' revolution. They will be two important building blocks in recognising the need to ensure that we support carers at every age from cradle to grave. Last Friday, I attended a national carers' rights day event in my constituency, at which these issues were discussed. There was a warm welcome for the 10-year child care strategy, and a recognition that we needed to focus on the special needs of children with disabilities, and on support for people who care for elderly parents. I recognise that the Government in Westminster and in Wales will address that issue as a consequence of those two important initiatives.
I know that that there is little time left, but I will end on a personal note. This morning, my 90-year-old mother is attending an excellent centre called the Dove workshop in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That centre was born out of adversity 20 years ago during the struggle of miners and their women supporters in the Dulais valley and throughout the country. It has, in many ways, pioneered many of the important, progressive policies in the Queen's Speech. Although the centre was originally targeted at young parents, it is now developing into a centre for all generations. The Labour Government are closely considering its work, and my progressive Neath Port Talbot county borough council has modelled its new learning network on that excellent work.
At the national carers' rights day event in my constituency last Friday, three broad issues that will be taken forward as a result of the Queen's Speech were identified. They are the needs of young carers—children under the age of 16; young parents of children with disabilities; and older people who care for elderly parents. Each of those categories is important and is at the heart of the work-life balance.
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at Two o'clock.
| 
