HC Deb 28 September 1949 vol 468 cc290-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. G. Wallace.]

9.59 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman (Bath)

I intend to be very short tonight. The purpose of the exercise is to elicit information from the Government and to obtain greater efficiency and economy, or both, in the machinery of Government. I think my first duty is to define what it is that I am talking about. You, Sir, I suppose, carry your national identity card with you, and you may be required by a policeman to produce it. I am not talking about the card, What I am talking about is the national registration number which is on that card, and which is also used in a great many aspects of the machinery of Government, in addition to its use on this particular card for what may be called police surveillance purposes.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Bowden.]

Mr. Pitman

The next point I want to make clear is the nature of the problem. The nature of the problem is really conditioned by the fact that more and more people are coming under the machinery of Government in all the vast schemes which have been going through, and that there are 50 million people in the country; some of them have the same name, because there are not 50 million separate names, even allowing for Christian names being added.

I have seen you, Mr. Speaker, even in the small Assembly of this House, embarrassed by the names of the Members you call. You have called out "Mr. Williams," and many Members have risen to their feet. You have then said "Mr. G. Williams," and two Members have remained standing. Eventually you have had to call, "The hon. Member for Tonbridge" as the Member you wished to select. Added to that is the fact that approximately 50 per cent. of the population change their names at least once in the course of their lives. I think we were all extremely pleased that you, Mr. Speaker, were faced with the very small difficulty of calling on the hon. Lady who represents South Aberdeen by a new name, and the House was indeed delighted with that change and wished her well in it. But it does emphasise the fact that in the administrative machinery of this country we have a colossal problem of names and volume.

Volume is an important matter. Unless people have looked at the problem of handling 50 million cards they do not appreciate the extent to which economies are important in this field. We must moreover in such circumstances have numerical identification, because we cannot operate any machinery of Government without the use of such numbers. In many cases also it is necessary to have three sets of files for administrative purposes. First, there is the numerical card index of 50 million cards giving names into numbers and the opposite giving numbers into names. Again, it may be necessary to have a completely different set dividing either one or the other into localities for address purposes. And so there is this vast field of administrative economy which is available.

I am making the point that the nature of the problem on the administrative machinery side is a formidable one and a very important one for efficient and economic Government. There is also an electoral problem. I think it is clearly a difficult one. We are all very proud of our names, and in my case I know how much I hate it when anyone puts in an extra "T" or adds an extra "N." We have to face the fact that people do not like the implication that their name is not sufficient. There is further the emotional point, that it is like a prisoner with a number in a cell. The only two uses for which people think the national registration card is used is for police surveillance and for the enforcement of conscription, for which purposes the card, with its addresses, is used. It seems to me at present the Government are falling between two stools. In the first place it is not satisfying the condition of efficiency and economy in administration, because there is not sufficient certainty that the national registration numbering scheme will continue. At all stages the machinery side of Civil Service administration is hampered by lack of certitude as to what will happen. On the other hand, the particular parts they are keeping are those which are electorally most unpopular and most vulnerable.

I would like to give an example of incomplete use. When we dealt with the question of special treatment in connection with furniture for newly married couples the use of the registration number would have been of great value to the Board of Trade, which had to find out whether Miss Snooks, who applied from a certain address on a certain date, was the same person as Mrs. Jones who, from a quite different address, also applied for a set of dockets for furniture. That position had to be met; if the national registration number had been used within that system it would have prevented any possibility of fraud, and would have saved the Board of Trade the need to supervise it in a special way.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop)

It was so used.

Mr. Pitman

It was so used, but it was not used as the main basis of the scheme. I believe that to be so, but if I am misleading the House I am extremely sorry. If it was so used then that is a good indication of how valuable it is to have certitude of policy and to know that something on which the whole of a Department is being built is likely to continue. At present, the Minister of Health is maintaining an elaborate central register of all names and numbers and with all addresses; there is however no certitude to any other Department that for any length of time they can depend on its continuity. It is not used basically for national insurance, although I think it could have been so used; it is of some use in the Post Office and dental services and in the health scheme. The chief advantage of getting some certainty in this matter is the desire to hive off from Departments more and more the executive side in parallel with the policy side. When that is more and more done there can be more and more sharing of these colossal 50 million registers, which are being duplicated in other parts of the country in addition to the central part.

There are only three courses open to the Government. They can take the popular electoral line and say: "We are not going to have a police State; we shall not number everybody like a criminal." I think that electorally the only potentially attractive part of the national registration numbers scheme is its possible use in preventing bigamy. In the old days we did not have a real problem. Banns called for three successive weeks, and at the final marriage service, were an effective way of preventing a woman being led into a faulty contract which gave her no security whatsoever. We have only to read present day newspapers to see that no security is now enjoyed by any single woman as a consequence of that condition as to publicity. It is unfortunate, but it is true, that information as to marriage and divorce is the only part of the national register that has not been maintained up to date. The address has been maintained but not the question of matrimony.

The next line of policy is a modified one to throw off the address, which is highly expensive. It takes about five times the expenditure to maintain a register with an address that is required to maintain one without. I would cite the example of Canada, where that is done, and where there is cut out at one stroke all the implications of a police State and of surveillance. The third line is to recognise that locality is important for administration, and that it matters to the Department whether National Insurance, Family Allowances or whatever it is, that full use will be continuously available of the Central National Register and if it is desired of the matrimonial history of the people concerned. What I should like to do tonight is to ask the Government in this matter of considerable economy, efficiency and planning in the future to come out clearly and say what they intend to do.

10.12 p.m.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

It is with pleasure that I join in this discussion. I think it is regrettable that only a dozen Members of Parliament are here to listen to a very important public saving which could be considered. There have been observations today by some hon. Members that no saving can be made in the national economy. A distinguished efficiency expert, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman), has very clearly put before the House suggestions which might well be considered in regard to public saving. In general, I would support what he said about the Government making up their mind about the use of these identity cards. I have never approved of them, nor have I found any great value in them.

My first criticism of them is in regard to their shape and form. They have three flaps and if carried over a period of time longer than three months the binding wears out and instead of three flaps they become entirely separate with the writing illegible. If hon. Members look at their cards they will find that what I am saying is correct. My own card, which I have carried with great care for many years, is in that condition to which I have referred. The binding is in such a way that it is broken and worn away. Possibly the Minister, who is waving his card in front of me, does not carry it with the same assiduity that I do. He has possibly less respect for authority, law and argument. He represents a Department which has frequently shown a desire to destroy those things.

I do not think that this matter should be handled by the Ministry of Health. It is a ubiquitous Department which invades many activities, not always with great success. If the card is to be retained at all why should not the Home Office be in charge of it, or more preferable still, it should be the business of the local authorities, who have an immense amount of machinery already in existence and do not require to set up a new one. In the City of Edinburgh the National Portrait Gallery, where pictures of our great men and women have been shown for many years, has been occupied by the hon. Gentleman's Department since 1939 and is concerned with these cards. The Ministry has shown no sign of dispensing with these cards so that the public can enjoy the examples of modern art which used to be housed in that building. That is one reform that is within the power of the Ministry.

If we are to have these cards, the time has surely come to review them in the light suggested by my hon. Friend. If the card is suitable, is it right that the Ministry of Health should handle it? Is it not possible for all of us to have a number from birth to death? Why should I have one number in the Army, 3/366, and S.K.49274 in my identity card? Is it not possible for the Ministry of Health or some other Government Department to see that at my baptism I am given a number which will last my life, and will carry me through the vicissitudes of bureaucracy until I am checked out at the graveyard or the crematorium?

Why should there be this multiplicity of numbers? If the card is to be continued, I think it should be made a more reliable document. The card contains no photograph. My signature is illegible, whether upon my cheques or upon my identity card. The card contains no fingerprints. I am not recommending these things. It is common knowledge that an identity card is almost useless because it can be pilfered by anyone. I understand that the price of an identity card is not very high. The system of identity cards ought either to be purged and improved, which would be a very costly matter and which I do not recommend, or His Majesty's Government might, in the interests of public economy and personal freedom, abolish it. I should be very grateful if the Minister who is to reply would indicate that the Government intend to follow one or other of those courses.

10.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) for introducing this subject this evening. By some it may be regarded as something of an anticlimax to the earlier Debate, but it has raised interesting problems. I seem to detect a certain amount of difference of opinion between the hon. Member for Bath and the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) on this subject. The views of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh seem, as usual, to be a little more vigorous and forthright. He seems to propose the complete abolition of these identity cards. I had some suspicion for a moment that he was suggesting that the portrait gallery in Edinburgh should be turned into a general portrait gallery for the population as something which was missed out of the provision of the identity cards. I did not quite follow his remarks about the three flaps. He seems to have a quite different sort of identity card from the one I possess.

Let me first of all deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Bath. I should point out first of all that the provisions for national registration were contained in the Act of 1939, which provides that it shall continue in force "until the end of the emergency" when that is declared. Therefore it is not in any way intended as a permanent feature of our legislation. I should be out of Order in discussing any proposal for its continuance indefinitely, as that would clearly require fresh legislation. Therefore I would rather content myself with discussing the problem of the use of registration numbers as at present available, and whether or not more effective use can be made of the system, without in any way interfering with the question whether or not it is to be terminated, as one would expect at the present time.

Mr. Pitman

It is just that uncertainty that is the trouble. The system has limited life. Without being out of Order I might suggest that the Government could quite properly say whether they intend, whenever the occasion arises for them to continue in office, to arm themselves with powers in this respect. Anyhow, now is the opportunity for the Minister to tell us.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I should be out of Order in developing arguments as to the final stages. Whether we could introduce legislation or not is something that obviously I cannot discuss upon the Adjournment Motion. I would direct attention to the replies given by my right hon. Friend, who has answered several Questions in the House on this subject. He has made it clear that while he is anxious to maintain and fully utilise the national registration system at the present time as long as it can be of real value, he does not regard it as in any way a permanent feature and has expressed himself vigorously on the subject more than once at this Box.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison (Edinburgh, West)

Would the hon. Gentleman indicate when the end of the emergency is likely to take place? I asked a Question about this at least three years ago and got no satisfactory reply.

Mr. Blenkinsop

No doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a Question on the Order Paper again and I hope he will get a satisfactory answer, but I am sure he will not expect me to give one tonight. Mainly we wish to ensure that the national registration system is as fully used as possible at the present time. I should rather have thought that in the public mind the registration card is much more linked up with food rationing than with any question of its use by the police or any other body, because the national registration offices are joined together with the food offices for general convenience, and are associated in people's minds. If one goes to alter one's address on the registration card, one goes to the local food office. That is the main use made at the moment of registration numbers.

There are many other uses. I would point out that the use by the police is restricted to cases of serious crime. It is certainly not generally used by the police. Very strict instructions are issued in that regard and we would certainly not like it to be thought that these registration cards and the particulars they provide are generally used in that way. They are used for food rationing, and for the National Health Service, and they provide a very useful way of notifying deaths, embarkations, etc. To executive councils in our Health Service they have proved very valuable indeed. They are also used, and have proved very helpful, in passport offices. They have enabled us in some respects to simplify the procedure for issuing passports. They have been used in other respects as well. The case of the Board of Trade and furniture has been mentioned, and there are other examples.

I would, therefore, point out that the national registration number is already being used in quite a wide variety of ways. It is true that the Ministry of National Insurance has an entirely separate numbering system, and there is also the number on the electoral rolls for election purposes, which is entirely separate. I quite appreciate the point that we do not want to try to carry in our minds, or in our pockets for that matter, a whole range of different sets of numbers for different purposes.

Mr. Pitman

There is also the case of family allowances.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I appreciate that point. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that we are examining the whole question of the fullest and most economical use of national registration numbers and we hope that we can, with the co-operation of the various Departments concerned, ensure that the very fullest use possible is made of them. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Bath, who has had wide experience in this matter, that it is of the greatest importance that we should try to secure the greatest possible economies in small fields like this, as well as in larger ones. We cannot satisfy the hon. Member for South Edinburgh in suggesting that this is a field which will solve the problems of general expenditure in the country. This is a very small matter, but a very useful one.

Sir W. Darling

£5 million.

Mr. Blenkinsop

That is certainly not in the field that we are discussing in trying to ensure the more adequate use of the existing registration system. Therefore, all I can say tonight to the hon. Member for Bath is that the whole question of the use of national registration numbers is at present being reviewed and we shall bear in mind his remarks this evening in connection with it.

With regard to the wider aspect of the problem, as I have already mentioned I am afraid I cannot discuss that tonight. The discussions that will take place on the use of national registration numbers must be without jeopardy to the wider problem of the long-term issue of whether or not we retain national registration numbers beyond the passage of the emergency.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes past Ten o'Clock.