|
Extract
from House of Commons Hansard, Debates for 5th November 2003
Identity Cards
Mr.
Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow):
As I said in Home Office questions, I think
that I am one of the few people who still has an ID card. I was issued
with one 10 days after I was born in 1942, and I still have it. It has
little rubber stamps on it, from when it was inspected.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If it is any
compensation, I think that there are probably three of us here.
Mr. Gerrard: Right.
One of the difficulties in debating an ID card system is that we need to know
what we are actually discussing, because the consultation paper opened up a
range of options. In his response to that consultation paper, the Information
Commissioner stated:
"I face a real
difficulty in knowing what the scheme that is being proposed really amounts to"
because of the diverse range of options that have
been proposed, and because the consultation paper asked for more suggestions.
The Information Commissioner was saying, "I've got a real problem here knowing
what I should be responding to," and that, before the Government go any further,
they should produce something more focused and clear.
It is obvious from the debate so far that everyone
assumes that the main purpose of ID cards is to deal with problems such as
fraud, illegal working, and illegal immigration. Terrorism has been mentioned,
but I do not think that the Government consultation paper suggested that ID
cards could be used to address terrorism.
Three questions should be asked, all of which have
been raised in the debate. Would ID cards work? Even if they were to work, would
they be the best way to deal with the problems mentioned? Would they be
acceptable? People may have issues with showing the cards. As my hon. Friend the
Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) said, there is a different culture in
this country about how to respond to the police when asked to produce papers
than in those European countries in which such practices have been common for
some time.
Another issue that has been discussed is that of
illegal working. It is a criminal offence for an employer to employ someone whom
they know is not entitled to work, but that does not stop them from doing it.
For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), mentioned
an incident involving a busload of people going to work illegally. I do not
believe that their employer did not know that they were working illegally. Of
course he knew. If an employer is prepared to break the law by not bothering to
check whether someone can produce a piece of paper that states that he is
entitled to work, would that employer ask to see an ID card? Of course he would
not. Those employers who avoid making checks are the same type of people who are
involved in large-scale fraudulent employment of illegal workers. I doubt
whether ID cards would make any difference.
If we want to catch the employers who are illegally
employing people, we should look at tax returns, VAT returns and national
insurance claims. One can bet one's life that they will not be making those
returns properly. I have mentioned that before in debates on this issue. We
should remember that Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion. There is more than
one way of getting at those who are involved in illegal employment.
As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas)
pointed out, benefit fraud is more often about the misrepresentation of
circumstances than the misrepresentation of identity. The police do not usually
have a problem identifying who someone is. They have much more of a problem
finding the evidence to tie them to the crime.
My main point is about how the system would be
established. Without a national database, an ID card system would be doomed to
failure. It would be a gift to fraudsters if ID cards were to become the
ultimate proof of identity, as they might, and we did not have secure systems
from the start. We know that systems such as those used by the Driver and
Vehicle Licensing Agency and the UK Passport Service are not secure. There are
plenty of fake driving licences around. In the past month, I have dealt with
three cases in which people were using fake driving licences in my constituents'
names. That is probably happening across the country, because DVLA and passport
records were not designed to establish identity. If we build on those databases,
we will construct a system that is full of flaws from day one.
If we were to opt for biometrics based on those
systems, we would still have a problem. Even if I produce a card with my iris
data or my finger prints, it proves only that I am the person whose personal
data is on the card. It does not prove that I am who I say I am. It cannot do
that unless we start with a secure database, but that has enormous cost and time
implications, and it would affect how such a system was constructed and
therefore how acceptable people would find it. Card readers would need to be
connected to the database in hospitals, benefit offices and so on—an immense
infrastructure would be needed.
Finally, I come to acceptability. I have heard many
times before the argument that we are all used to carrying bits of plastic, but
that is not so. For instance, only 50 per cent. of the population has a credit
card. Even now, many people do not carry plastic. Those who are least likely to
do so are to be found in the most deprived and marginalised communities, and
they will become targets if they do not have ID cards.
I am not convinced that those who say, "I have
nothing to fear. I wouldn't mind. I carry plastic anyway," would feel the same
if they were stopped in the street or on arrival at hospital and asked, "Where
is your ID card?" They would say, "Why me? Why are you questioning me? I have
nothing to hide. I am innocent. I am a respectable person." People would not
take it kindly.
I return to the Information Commissioner's response,
which is worth listening to. He said:
"I am concerned
that although there may be plausible arguments made for the introduction of an
entitlement card scheme in the short term there is the potential for function
creep as administrative and political priorities change or even just to maximise
the use of a costly infrastructure."
In other words, as I said to my hon. Friend the
Member for Reading, West, there is not much doubt that if a scheme were
introduced that, on paper, was voluntary, it would be compulsory within 10 years
and people would be asked to carry their cards with them wherever they went.
Whatever the Government may say—I do not disbelieve them—it does not bind future
Governments. That is one of the greatest dangers.
|
