Tom
Brake: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has had
experiences similar to mine in dealing with the Child Support Agency
and the Benefits Agency when constituents say that they have provided
data that have disappeared into a black hole. How often does he suspect
that people have sent information off correctly, but it has got lost in
the system, and they may be liable to
charges?
Tony
Baldry: We all have numerous examples and most of us have
parliamentary case workers who spend a lot time chasing up the CSA, or
the passport agency when passports have gone missing. That is not an
uncommon occurrence. That is just a practical difficulty, but it seems
to me that there is a philosophical
and important point, which Ministers are still avoiding, of whether the
ID system is compulsory or voluntary. If it is voluntary, why do we
have all these statutory instruments that seem to introduce civil and
criminal
penalties? 5.8
pm Mr.
George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East) (Lab):
May I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Dean? It is a pleasure
to serve under your
chairmanship. I
am one of those who believe that there should be a compulsory identity
card scheme. I can see no issue in principle about people being asked
to confirm that they are who they say they are. There are all sorts of
benefits in that, but now is not the time to go into them. I do not
think the great civil libertarian arguments cut much ice when it comes
to the simple proposition that someone who says that they are X should
be able to prove it. Not everyone chooses to apply for a passport, and
I am aware of at least one hon. Member who, until recently, made a
great virtue of not having a passport. Many hon. Members here,
including my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside,
know to whom I refer. However, for the moment, I will leave the issue
of principle
aside. My
right hon. Friend pointed out an interesting divergence between the
hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and the hon. Member for
Ashford. The difference between them is probably explicable in terms of
the individual case. The general principle to which the hon. Member for
Ashford referred is true. It is not difficult in most cases to
establish identity. In fact, it is so easy that many people manage to
establish multiple identities.
I will not go
through chapter and verse, but anyone who chooses to read the cases of
those who have been apprehended in pursuit of terrorist aims will
realise that some of them had several identities. In one case—it
is still before the courts, so I will not name it—a gentleman
was apprehended in Pakistan carrying two British passports. Both were
perfectly valid and both seemed to indicate that he was two different
people. There is a difficulty in that
respect. In
addition, carrying an identity card can have a great number of benefits
for the holder of the card. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that
someone does not happen to have their driving licence with them, but
the police who have stopped their car require them to establish their
identity. A good, valid identity card system would avoid the person
having to go to the police station within a certain number of days to
produce documents proving that as the driver of the car, they were also
its
owner.
Damian
Green: One of the basic points that Ministers have made
throughout—it is almost the only point on which the Government
have been consistent—is that identity cards will not need to be
carried, so the right hon. Gentleman’s last point is completely
invalid.
Mr.
Howarth: No, it is not at all. The hon. Gentleman’s
logic is entirely flawed. I am not saying that person X who was stopped
in their car had to be carrying an identity card and a driving licence,
but if they had one—the identity card— rather than the
other, it would
be a fairly straightforward matter to prove that they were the
registered owner of the vehicle. That is a simple point. It does not
require that they be forced to carry the card; it is merely that there
is a convenience in carrying
it. I
can think of many other examples. If young people are out on the street
in circumstances in which the police may have reason to apprehend
numbers of young people, it would be convenient for those young people,
if they had an identity card, to carry it with them. It is not that
they should be forced to do so, but it may be convenient for them to do
so. I well remember that when I was young and on St. John’s
estate in Huyton, it seemed that every time I came home at night I was
stopped by the police. Perhaps that is because I am an instantly
suspicious person, but I think it was the way of the police in that
particular area at that particular time. Sometimes it meant great
inconvenience, as I had to go back and prove that I was who I said I
was. I can therefore envisage many circumstances in which carrying an
identity card would be
convenient.
Mr.
Gray: The right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated the
schizophrenic approach to these cards that is taken by the whole of the
Labour party. A moment ago, his thesis was that it was very important
that they should be compulsory; he is now listing a whole variety of
reasons why they should be voluntary, precisely as a young
person’s ID card is at the moment. If someone goes into a bar
when they are under 21 and can show an ID card—it is
voluntary—there are benefits in that. However, his thesis a
moment ago was that he feels strongly that there should be a compulsory
regime. Perhaps he would like to advance some arguments as to why that
is the
case.
Mr.
Howarth: Again, characteristically, the hon.
Gentleman’s logic is flawed. My personal view—I do not
speak for the Government; those days have long since gone, to
everyone’s mighty relief—is that a compulsory identity
card system would be a good thing; it would have benefits. I am,
however, a pragmatist. We are not debating a compulsory identity card
scheme; we are debating these particular regulations. The argument I am
making is that even a voluntary identity card scheme could be to the
benefit of those who choose to carry a card. If they chose to carry a
card, the benefits I have described would be relevant; if they chose
not to, obviously they would not be relevant. The hon. Gentleman is
seeking flaws in my logic by coming up with a flawed logic all of his
own. My
final point is about criminal sanctions. There will be benefits to
carrying an identity card is somebody chooses to do so. That relates to
my original point about the speech of the hon. Member for Ashford.
Because there will be benefits, people might try to acquire an identity
card by deception. There would be benefits in doing so for anyone
involved in crime or terrorism. They could use false addresses and
information. There should therefore be sanctions against those who
apply
falsely. I
am sure that the Minister will say this when he speaks, but I have no
doubt that the chances of someone who inadvertently makes a mistake in
his application being prosecuted are slim. However, anybody who
acquires
an identity card by being deliberately deceptive ought to be aware that
they are subject to sanctions. The argument about sanctions is entirely
bogus. If we lived
in a perfect world where nobody tried to deceive anybody or pretend
they were somebody they were not, sanctions would not be necessary.
Unfortunately, as I have learned from spending a large part of my life
in politics, it is always best to look at the world as it is and not as
we would prefer it to
be. 5.17
pm
Mr.
Campbell: I am grateful for the measured way in which this
short debate is taking place and for the valuable comments and
questions. I will answer as many as I
can. I
will first comment on the telling speech of my right hon. Friend the
Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East. There is no uniform
standard for proving ID in this country. Different combinations of
documents are required by different organisations in different places.
As he pointed out, there are people who seek deliberately to exploit
that for their own ends. Identity fraud, which he mentioned, costs the
country about £1.2 billion a year. It can take a lot of time and
effort to put that right. He and I can see the benefits of what is
being proposed, even if that view is not universally held on the
Opposition Benches. Some people, including me, would want to carry an
identity card. I look forward to the day when I am able to do so. I
hope that it will be as trusted as a passport. It will certainly cost
less than one. It will be flexible and, just as important, it will make
use of 21st century
technologies. Let
me make it clear that the Home Secretary said in a written ministerial
statement of 30 June that the draft Identity Cards Act 2006
(Designation) Order 2009 had been withdrawn. As a result, identity
cards will be entirely voluntary. Although it seems to have been missed
over the past few days, that is in line with our previous commitments
to bring legislation back to Parliament before we cross the threshold
of making identity cards
compulsory.
Mr.
Gray: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way
and for clarifying that point. I realise that explanatory memorandums
do not form a statutory part of statutory instruments. None the less,
will he explain why the explanatory memorandum issued to us today
states that the designation order will be laid before Parliament and
debated? That means that the explanatory memorandum is incorrect. Does
that not cause the Minister a degree of
embarrassment?
Mr.
Campbell: I will look into that, if the hon. Gentleman
will allow me. He knows that this argument has changed somewhat over
the last few days. It may be that the paperwork has not quite caught up
with the
policy. The
hon. Member for Ashford asked what would happen if somebody did not
want an identity card after they had applied for one. The process would
be exactly the same as if the person had died. The card would be
cancelled and the entry on the national identity register
would be logged as no longer relating to a valid card, and it would no
longer be a requirement to keep the identity details up to
date. The
hon. Member for West Chelmsford raised a point, as he did earlier
today, about making provisions for individuals who are homeless. The
regulations allow such an individual to make adequate arrangements for
a contact address to be provided according to their individual needs.
For example, the address could be that of a shelter where they are
being accommodated, or even a benefits office. I am told that these are
not insurmountable issues.
The hon.
Member for Ashford raised a point about women’s refuges and
changes of address. We shall of course look to protect sensitive
addresses, as we do now, when women who might need their address to be
protected ask for support in, for example, a women’s refuge.
Crucially, though, addresses will not be printed on the cards, and no
one, apart from the Department, and police and security services
approved by Parliament, will be provided with address information
without the consent of the person whose card it is.
The hon.
Gentleman asked about encryption. The personal information to be
recorded on the face of the card is listed in regulation 5 and includes
two fingerprints. Those provisions are in line with international
standards set out by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. He
also asked about EEA nationals. The cards will be available to such
nationals on a voluntary basis, as is the case for UK nationals, and
the information will be held in a similar way. He also asked whether
anything in the statutory instruments or ID cards changes will change,
or extend, the EU data-sharing arrangements. I am advised that the
answer is
no. Much
has been made about those who might seek to get round the rules to get
another ID card or to apply in someone else’s name. Of course,
however, that could happen with other documents that people seek to
misuse for their own ends. The application data will be checked against
public and private databases to verify the existence of the identity in
society and its link to the applicant, and key supporting documentation
will be examined. However, applicants who have not previously held a UK
passport will be met personally and interviewed to verify their
application details, and fraud investigation units would be very
interested in cases when people try to get round the
rules. The
hon. Member for West Chelmsford said that the United States is a great
symbol of why we do not need ID cards. However, the US has just
introduced a passport card for people who travel to Canada and Mexico,
which, at the end of the day, is an identity card in all but name. The
hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington actually made the case for ID
cards. He asked what would happen if people could not get the
information required. Regulations 5, 6 and 11 allow for the requirement
to be waived, and staff at the Identity and Passport Service can work
with the individual in question to ensure that suitable evidence is
provided according to their individual circumstances. If he asks me for
a guarantee that that will always be the case, of course, I cannot give
him one. However, we have foreseen the possibility and are doing
everything that we can.
The hon.
Gentleman also asked whether there will be room on the chip to extend
the data. For the avoidance of doubt, I shall repeat my earlier
remarks: no sensitive information relating to medical, criminal, tax or
benefit records will be recorded, either on the card or the register.
We do not need to create that space, because we do not intend to add
that information.
Damian
Green: The Minister will be aware that the legislation
does permit such information to be put on the register. Forty-nine
types of information, some of them very sensitive, are provided for, so
I do not know how he can make the assertion that he just
did.
Mr.
Campbell: I give way to the hon. Member for Carshalton and
Wallington.
Tom
Brake: I heard what the Minister said, but I am not sure
whether he answered my question as categorically as I would have liked.
Is there any spare capacity on the
chip?
Mr.
Campbell: I shall certainly look into that, but I can see
no need for spare capacity on the chip, because what I am trying to say
is that to some extent it is irrelevant what the future may
be— [Interruption.] Let me finish my point.
It is irrelevant unless at some future point a future Government were
to bring forward proposals to add to the amount of data held on a card.
Some people, including me, would quite like additional data on an
identity card. However, that is not what we are about today. The hon.
Gentleman asks me whether something that we are not going to do at this
point is verified or not by the size of the chip on the card. All that
I am saying is that we are debating what is before us today. I have
said what will not be on the
card.
Mr.
Gray: The Minister just made an extremely interesting
point. He said that personally, speaking as a human being—and
presumably as a Minister—he would be in favour of more
information being held on the card. Can he give us some guidance about
what sort of extra information he feels might be wanted on the
card?
Mr.
Campbell: The hon. Gentleman attracts me down a route I do
not intend to go along. I was speaking—perhaps I overstepped the
mark—as a human being and not a Minister.
I am
personally persuaded that if there were an ID card and it had scope for
further information, some of that information, for my personal
circumstances, would be a good thing. However, that discussion is not
why we are here. We are here to deal with the Government’s
proposals, and I am stating that case today as a Minister, rather than
being dragged by the hon. Gentleman down a route that, I agree, I
initially offered to go
down. Much
has been made of the fingerprint issue and whether we can make it not
just robust but watertight, so that such biometric data work. I do not
think that we should assume a necessarily higher than anticipated rate
with biometric tests. We must look at individual systems and make sure
that we make them as robust as we can. All I can say in response to the
hon. Member
for Carshalton and Wallington is that we of course have identity cards
for foreign nationals and there is not a single instance of such a
breakdown as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I hope to some extent
that that provides
reassurance. The
hon. Member for Banbury talked about penalties. There is a debate,
which we engaged with earlier, about criminal and civil penalties.
However, I want to make it clear that we do not propose a criminal
penalty for failure to change address. We shall make it easy for people
who want to notify their change of address, just as today people tell
data-holding organisations and agencies about their change of address.
That is what we want to happen. However, there is a code of practice on
civil penalties, which explains the point, should the hon. Gentleman
want to go further along that
route. I
have two more points to make before I conclude. The first underlies to
some extent the reason why the Opposition, having some concern about
cost, want the debate. The infrastructure that is being put in place is
necessary for the purpose of the continuance and upgrading of the
biometric passport system. More than 70 per cent. of the costs that we
propose would be necessary for the introduction of such passports.
Operational costs are recovered by fees. ID card costs will be
recovered by fees as happens with passports. There is no magical pot of
money that will be made available and saved, as has been suggested.
That is before we get to the discussion about the long-term benefits to
the economy, never mind the rest of society, from the introduction of
ID
cards. The
benefits of ID cards are perhaps a matter for debate this evening.
However, the two draft statutory instruments before us are essential
for the introduction of ID cards later this year. I remind the
Committee and the hon. Member for Ashford, who made the remark about ID
cards never seeing the light of day, that there is consistent
support—some 60 per cent.—for the introduction of
identity
cards.
| 
