§ 5.13 a.m.
§ Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)The subject which I raise this morning is by no means a new one. Indeed, in one of the earliest debates of this Parliament, my hon. Friends and I were putting forward the case that there were strong arguments for introducing in Northern Ireland, on security grounds, a system of 1978 compulsory carrying of identification and of identity cards. Even then the story was by no means new.
It was natural after the War that in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, there should be a revulsion against all forms of war-time control. But certainly the recent period of attack upon the Province has profoundly altered the attitude of the public in Northern Ireland towards this, as towards any other measure which might be of assistance.
My hon. Friends and I are convinced that, whatever might have been the case a few years ago, there would certainly be now no resistance whatsoever on the part of the public of Northern Ireland to the obligation to carry forms of identification which would be of assistance in the cause of security.
As I said, this question was raised in one of the earliest of the debates in this Parliament which took place in the context of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill at the end of 1974. We have periodically returned to the subject ever since. On each occasion it has been intimated to us that the advice of those directly responsible for security in Northern Ireland continued to be that the advantages of the introduction of compulsory identity cards in the Province were more than outweighed by the disadvantages. Nevertheless, I think that the Secretary of State will probably agree—I am not asking him, for reasons which I will indicate in a moment, to agree openly—that there has been a good deal of rethinking taking place on this subject as the months have gone by. Certainly my hon. Friends and I are impressed by the frequency with which, in our relations with the security forces, we find them returning now to this subject and placing a favourable emphasis upon the proposition that it is time that the obligation of carrying a form of identity was introduced in Northern Ireland.
It is indeed a paradox and, I think, an absurdity that when, in the eighth year of the present phase of disorder, we find the level of violence, though it varies in its form, by no means diminishing, the advantages for surveillance and control of a system of compulsory carrying of identification should not at least be practically recognised.
This is a case which is all the stronger since Northern Ireland is, of course, the 1979 only part of the United Kingdom with an open and, indeed, a lengthy land frontier—a part of the United Kingdom into which entry cannot conceivably be controlled in the way in which it can be controlled at all the other points of entry into the country.
When we bring together the uncontrolled and substantially uncontrollable frontier and the persistence at a high level of disorder and violence, murder and destruction, first in one part of the Province and then in another, my hon. Friends and I maintain that we ought no longer to leave the security forces without the powerful assistance which they would derive from a system of personal identification.
At the moment the forms of identification are as diverse as they are unsatisfactory. [Interruption.] I am doing my best, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to cope with the conversation which is taking place. I cannot hope in this instance for the protection of the Chair. Nevertheless, I persist, particularly in view of the intense importance of the subject.
I was saying that the present forms of identification are as unsatisfactory as they are various. There is, of course, the Northern Ireland driving licence which, unlike the driving licence in the rest of the United Kingdom, carries a photograph of the purported holder. But by no means all who are required to identify themselves drive vehicles and are therefore obliged to be in possession of a driving licence. Once we go beyond the driving licence, there is only a chance selection of documents by which an individual, on being challenged, might be able or expected to identify himself.
This situation unnecessarily complicates and aggravates the difficulties of the security forces in exercising both surveillance and control over entry into Northern Ireland from outside and in carrying out the identifications which might lead to arrests and to convictions.
For the armed forces, with their relatively brief periods of duty in the affected areas, the absence of a standard and accurate form of identification is particularly hampering. I am sure that this point will have been put to the Secretary of State on behalf of the armed forces. When we consider that throughout the Province at any time of the day or night, 1980 but particularly at night, large numbers of persons are being checked, or attempts are made to check them, for their identities and movements, by the UDR, the police and the Army, it amounts to a tremendous hindrance to that work that there should be no requirement upon those going about their occasions in the Province to carry any form of identification which is at all reliable.
Therefore, I turn to the form of identification itself. We would say that it ought to be a legal requirement—a requirement with which it would be an offence not to comply—to carry either a passport, which would be necessary for those entering the Province from outside, or a form of identification which would carry a recent and clear photograph, the signature and, preferably, the fingerprints of the holder—in other words, as near as maybe unbreakable proof associated with the identity of the holder.
All forms of identity cards, passports, and the rest can, if need be, be forged. No document is forgery proof. But we do not regard that as a ground on which to dispense with passports. Nor is it a serious argument against the case for a requirement of the carrying of identity cards in present circumstances in Northern Ireland. The complicated and difficult steps which would be necessary to produce an adequate forgery of the kind of identity card that I have been describing, though they might for special purposes be resorted to, would be so uncommon as not seriously to affect the utility of a universal identity card requirement for the purposes of security in the Province.
A debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill is not the occasion on which, normally and understandably, Ministers announce changes and developments of policy. In any case, I would not expect that there would be a sudden conversion on the part of the Government on this matter which has so frequently and for so lengthy a time been pressed upon them. I do not believe that developments of this sort are accepted by a kind of sudden conversion, a road to Damascus effect, upon the Floor of the House. They come about—and this is the utility of this kind of debate—by the continued pressure and impact goth of the opinions which hon. Members register in the light of their observation and of the experience and the advice—the great 1981 volume of advice—which reaches Ministers.
The purpose of my hon. Friends and myself in seeking this brief debate on this subject this morning is to register the fact—for it is a fact—that a proposition which was barely considered two years or more ago has over the past two years become a proposition more and more strongly urged by more and more of those who are concerned in the work of security in Northern Ireland until, in our view, it has reached the point when the Government ought to be considering the practical implications and the practical conditions of introducing this measure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and others later today in the debate on the motion for the Adjournment of the House for the recess will be raising the general question of the current state of operations in Northern Ireland, as it is proper that it should be raised before the House rises for the recess. In the light and against the background of the situation of which it will be their duty to remind the House it is essential that no element, no device, no requirement which could appreciably assist the security forces should now be neglected.
The necessary conditions are certainly available for the introduction of this measure. There is the general readiness of public opinion to accept and even to demand anything which could facilitate the work of control, surveillance and identification. There is the evident fact that the security forces are still not coping successfully with the protean and ever-changing, ever-elusive enemy by which they are confronted. And there is the relative simplicity—and it is the relative simplicity—of this measure which would vastly enhance the power of identification in the hands of the security forces and add a new dimension to their potentialities.
Therefore, we make no apology for once again pressing upon the Government this proposition which we have so often brought forward, but never before with so much support behind it from those in the Province who are most intimately concerned with the work which has to be done.
§ 5.31 a.m.
§ Mr. Robert J. Bradford (Belfast, South)I return to the point which has already been made cogently and forcefully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and which I wish to underwrite—the fact that the forces, as well as most political commentators, are anxious to see in Northern Ireland ever-increasingly effective measures to combat terrorism.
First of all, however, I stress the point that there is no real difficulty in producing such cards in the United Kingdom. The practicalities of production pose little problem for the introduction of identity cards throughout the realm.
Those who had to live through the last war will recall that within three and a half weeks, some 47 million identity cards were produced because of the obvious security situation. It is true that these cards produced in 1939 did not have a photograph and were fairly basic. Nevertheless, the development in modern technology has been such that the production of cards with a photograph—cards which could not be easily forged—could take place easily, quickly and to the great benefit of the whole nation.
The introduction of such cards would be of great advantage to the security forces and those whose task it is to interpret the political situation in Northern Ireland. It would give them a means of instant identification.
At the moment when cars are stopped by the security forces a driving licence is sometimes requested as proof of identity. But it is often possible that three or four passengers in the car with the driver are not asked for any identification. If the driver satisfies the request of the forces, it is possible—in fact it must have occurred, by the law of averages—that those travelling with the driver may well have been involved in the pursuit of terrorism. If everyone is checked and has to produce a bona fide identity card, the tracking down of terrorists in the Province will be facilitated.
There are side benefits from having identification cards. There is the problem of misappropriation of money in Northern Ireland through illegal cashing of benefit cheques. There is abundant evidence that the IRA has been involved in this kind of misappropriation, not only 1983 in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland idenfication is not required when payments of £15 and below are being drawn, and it does not take many such payments to add up to a considerable sum.
If identification cards were required for every statutory payment whenever a Giro cheque was cashed in a post office there would be a further and most significant reduction in the amount of money misappropriated and redirected into the coffers of the IRA.
In 1974 about £133,000 was misappropriated, and there is good reason to believe that much of it was turned into weaponry to hurt and destroy the economy of Northern Ireland. It is estimated that in the rest of the United Kingdom £2 million was misappropriated, much of that money being used by the IRA. In that respect therefore the issue of identity cards would have a beneficial side effect.
There are inconsistencies at the points of embarkation and disembarkation. It is well known by those who commute frequently from Northern Ireland to the mainland that embarkation cards are used. As well as completing one of those cards one is obliged to produce one's driving licence or passport. It seems unnecessary therefore to fill out such a card if a passport or driving licence will suffice, and if the officer is satisfied only by the production of a photograph.
We return to the possibility of forgery. The examining officer becomes very agitated if one does not fill in the card, even though it may be superfluous, and on occasions tempers have become frayed. An identity card would remove that situation and the need to complete a card. It would also satisfy the examining officer.
If there were a commitment to introduce identity cards, it might involve a redefinition of British citizenship because we should need to decide who should receive the cards. That is a wide and important debate, but it would be no bad thing for the Kingdom as a whole—and not just Northern Ireland in its present plight—for that debate to take place. We must discover sooner or later who truly ought to be designated a British 1984 citizen and whom, within the shores of the Kingdom, we can trust.
The British Nationality Act 1948 is under consideration, not because we have raised this issue, but for many accompanying reasons. It would be of great benefit to the nation to have identity cards, not just in respect of terrorism in Northern Ireland but for problems which will soon emerge on the mainland. We need a re-vamping of the Act to define who shall be entitled to British citizenship.
This is not an academic study. It is an important requirement in the battle against terrorism. It is thought by the forces in the Province that our suggestion will save lives and even if only tens of lives are involved, it should be considered for implementation in the near future. I believe that the scheme would also save jobs and encourage people to hold on in the belief that the battle against terrorism is being won.
§ 5.42 a.m.
§ Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim, South)I commend my colleagues for their persistence in pressing for action on this matter in the past and particularly at this early hour when they have been faced with considerable competition.
There would be no problem in the mass production of these documents. As a former Home Office Minister, the Secretary of State can correct me if necessary, but I seem to remember that during the war we had green identity cards in areas of Northern Ireland where security was particularly tight. They carried a photograph of the holder and his signature which made them more valuable than the documents that were issued nationally.
The present range of identity documents is thoroughly unsatisfactory. I often think that it must be bewildering for a young soldier on his first tour of Northern Ireland to be confronted with an apparently very wide choice of methods of identification.
The driving licence is one of the most commonly demanded documents. However, it can take anything up to three weeks to renew a driving licence. When I was asked for my driving licence in June I had to reply "I am sorry, it has gone to that great streamlined unit at Coleraine which was designed to speed 1985 up the operation." Under the old system in the county council days we managed, with all our supposed inefficienly, to issue a driving licence within three days. It now takes three weeks, but that is progress. During the time that an ordinary citizen is waiting for his licence to be renewed he is left without what is apparently regarded by the security forces as the most favoured identification document.
There is a further weakness in the driving licence identification as the address of the holder is not kept up to date. That is partly because the licence runs for three years. It is then renewed as it stands for a further three years. That means that the holder's address can be five years or six years out of date. A further complication has been caused by the numbering of roads. The system is completely unintelligible to those who live within a very few miles of each other. It is causing a great deal of confusion in the minds of those who have to check these documents. Both the old address and the new address can be held, legally, to be the correct address. Someone has gone to town on the supposed updating of the addressing system and the result has been confusion.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) has said, there is a further flaw in that it is only the driver of the vehicle who is asked to produce his licence. There is far greater difficulty with public transport vehicles. The passengers of a train or bus cannot be expected to carry with them any form of identification as matters stand. In the centres of many towns there are areas where access is restricted to pedestrians only. There is no requirement that they should carry any form of identification.
There are also external checks. They are external in the sense that they take place outside Northern Ireland but not outside the United Kingdom. There is the identification that is demanded at ports and airports, where the confusion has to be seen to be believed. On the incoming airliner, in addition to the warnings to remain seated and to keep the seat belt fastened until the engines are switched off—those of us who travel regularly to and from Northern Ireland could go through the procedure as well as a member 1986 of the airways staff as we know it by heart—the passengers are informed as they go into Heathrow or Gatwick that they will be required to produce some form of identification. If the steward happens to be especially helpful, he will go on to say that it can be a driving licence or a bank cheque card.
If one is not required to carry a driving licence, or if one does not possess one, presumably the bank cheque card is thought to be a suitable alternative. With my present overdraft I should never dare to use one, but I understand that such a card is valid only if presented in a bank and if the signature is duplicated in the presence of a bank employee. It is no good one simply giving this as a kind of token across the counter. A cross-check has to be made, and that cannot be done at the points of entry.
On another occasion I related how my House of Commons pass was treated as something of very small account and that I was asked for something more positive, such as my airline ticket. I am not sure whether the official concerned was obtaining a commission from British Airways in order to make sure that I had not been joy-riding—not that I would engage in such an activity. But it seems most extraordinary that the left-over carbon copy of an air ticket should be held to be more valuable, as far as proof is concerned, than a House of Commons pass bearing the photograph of the holder.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has said, and truly, that there was a time when there was opposition in Northern Ireland to the idea of identity cards on the ground that the issue of identity cards would make us different from the other citizens of the United Kingdom. However, it so happens that we are different from other citizens of the United Kingdom. We are being murdered at the rate of six a week, and that is different from the rest of the United Kingdom. The subject that we have been discussing this morning would be welcomed, at any rate, by those people who for the moment survive.
§ Mr. John Carson (Belfast, North)rose—
§ Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to intervene at this stage but I 1987 wanted to raise a matter concerning the other business in respect of the Consolidated Fund Bill. I was under the impression that item No. 14, in respect of the Heavy Commercial Vehicles Act, was to be the ensuing item of business but I understand that the order has been changed somewhat. I may have missed a point of procedure about the way in which the Consolidated Fund Bill Second Reading is managed and arranged, but it seems extraordinary that I have been pacing up and down all night waiting for this debate and learning my speech and have not been called.
I know that the Minister has been up all night and that he has a busy ministerial schedule later today. It seems extraordinary that this can happen as a result of a rearrangement of the list of speakers in the Irish debate. I understand that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) was to have initiated this debate but that instead the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) opened the Irish debate.
Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, explain precisely what has happened? There are many people in the country interested in the heavy lorries legislation, such as environmentalists and those concerned with the road haulage industry, and they are waiting to hear the Government's views in order to give them the opportunity for an important reappraisal of how the legislation is being operated. I would be most grateful if you could explain what precisely has happened.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised this point of order. He is absolutely right, because I noticed him in the Chamber throughout the evening and early this morning. The position is that Mr. Speaker's ballot makes a choice of hon. Members who have been successful and whose subjects will be debated during the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. However, the priority accorded is not in respect of the subject but in respect of the individual hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman is therefore quite right. The hon. Member who was No. 11 on the sheet was not present. Had the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) been present she would then have been the next one called—not the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The hon. Lady may have been waiting 1988 until the Irish debate was settled, but because the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman were not present, the right hon. Member for Down, South, being next in the list, was called. Had they been present this debate would not have been going on at the present time, because the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) was not here. I am sorry about the misunderstanding and I can understand the genuine grievance of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) in being missed out altogether now.
§ Mr. DykesFurther to the point of order. I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your explanation and your expression of sympathy. I understand that this procedure or a similar one has obtained in the past on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I should like, with your permission, though not necessarily with your approval, to write to Mr. Speaker to raise this important point. I do not want to take up more time, because Irish business is important—although a good deal of time has been devoted to it this Session. The absence of the hon. Member for Belfast, South has produced an accidental, haphazard effect on other important items, including consideration of the Heavy Commercial Vehicles Act. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for what you have said.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has been most unfortunate. He has been in the Chamber for a good deal of the evening. I know that it is a poor substitute, but if he were to raise the points he wanted to make tonight in a letter to me I should certainly reply to all of them.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerPerhaps the hon. Member can raise this matter in the debate this day on the Adjournment for the Summer Recess. I do not think that Mr. Speaker is in any way at fault. It may be that hon. Members thought that subjects were grouped together on the list, whereas in fact it is the individual who is selected according to his number. I expected that if the hon. Member for Wallasey had been present we might have had a bit of a row, because I saw that the right hon. Member for Down, South was expecting to be called next. However, 1989 with his great knowledge of procedure I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have known that he would not be called after the London debate because the hon. Member for Belfast, South had to be called first. He was No. 11 and headed that list.
I must express my regret to the hon. Member for Harrow, East. He was not present at the time and a Whip was sent to find him but apparently just missed him. If he tries to get in on the debate later today, Mr. Speaker may be sympathetic.
§ 5.58 a.m.
§ Mr. John Carson (Belfast, North)Much has been said in the last year or so about improving security in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, much of the advice given on both sides of the House has been ignored. This advice has included such things as internment and other methods of combating terrorism, but this advice has not been followed up.
There was never a stronger case for identification cards. The security forces have made clear that it would make their job much easier if they had the opportunity to check people by identity cards. Many people in Northern Ireland have told me that. Why will the Government not introduce at least identity cards so that terrorists can be identified much more easily?
The only group who would fear identity cards would be the terrorists. Members of this House do not find it objectionable to carry identity cards and many people in Northern Ireland already carry them as a means of identity and admission to their place of work. That applies to the electricity board, to members of Belfast City Council and to people employed by other bodies, for example. They do not at all object to carrying a means of proving their identity to get into their place of employment.
People in Northern Ireland have been seeking for seven years a way of solving the present tragic situation. The present Government have been asked what they can do to end terrorism and violence, and that is an appeal from everybody in this House and from the hearts of the people of Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said, we are in a some- 1990 what different situation from the rest of the people in the United Kingdom because the people of Northern Ireland are being killed at the rate of six a week. That is tragic.
It is sensible that everybody there should be registered and be required to carry an identity card. The security forces have told me that every time a known terrorist is brought in for screening, a photograph is taken. It is posted in the operations room and issued to members of the security forces and they are told that that is of a known terrorist. If such a person is intercepted they can arrest that person and take him or her for interrogation.
The Minister will agree with me that it has been known in the past for certain terrorists to be interrogated and screened. Eighteen months later the person is rearrested. It is easy for people to change the colour of the hair and to change clothing and the appearance of the face. It has been known for terrorists to be arrested by the security forces and then allowed to go, having produced false identification.
I support what my right hon. and hon. Friends said. It is essential that the Government should yield to the pleas of these people of Northern Ireland. This would be simple but it could equally be effective.
We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) that the driver of a car can be called on to produce a driving licence. But he could have the most important terrorist in Northern Ireland in the back of the car with him, and he could easily be smuggled across the border or taken through another part of the Province. It is important not only that the driver should produce a driving licence but also that the passengers should produce evidence of identity.
The security forces are doing a job that is appreciated by all law-abiding citizens. If the House appreciates the work of the security forces, as I am sure it does—the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, one of the best forces in the world until it was torn apart by politicians and others—it is essential that it gives them the support they need and deserve in tracking down terrorists in the Province.
1991 I emphasise that law-abiding citizens will have no objection. Many people, from housewives shopping in the street to businessmen who drive to their place of work, have said to me "Why can we not have a means of identity so that when we are stopped by the security forces we can produce an identity card?"
Recently a bomb went off near Ann Street, Belfast, inside the so-called security zone. The gates were immediately closed. People were forced to line up for a long time. The Secretary of State will recall that there was an outcry. The security forces took the name and address of every person leaving the zone. Had identity cards been in use, it would not have been necessary for names and addresses to be taken in that way. The details of any suspicious person could have been checked by radio with headquarters.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have made a good case which will command the support of hon. Members on both sides. I know that we speak for the vast majority in Northern Ireland—and I do not mean just the Protestant side; I mean the minority and the majority. Law-abiding citizens will support the Secretary of State if he introduces identity cards because they will make the job of the security forces and the police easier and will, perhaps, even save life.
§ 6.10 a.m.
§ The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees)The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that a debate of this nature illustrates one of the values of the House because it gives hon. Members a chance to wear away at the Executive on a particular issue. That is right. My security advisers are constantly thinking and rethinking security policy. I constantly read and reread, discuss and rediscuss security policy, one development of which is the committee on law and order. I agree that hearing an argument deployed again is of value to all of us who are concerned about security problems.
But there is a danger. Because people feel frustrated and are faced with a changing type of violence they may find it too easy to latch on to something new and to believe that it will prove to be the solution to the problem. Sometimes people say "Let us do something". But 1992 that plays into the hands of those who, in this type of warfare, play on a lowering of morale. Sometimes people say out of frustration "Why do not the Government do something?" They want something done for the sake of doing something new because they feel that not enough is being done.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) said that identity cards would be a clarification of citizenship. I do not hold him to that because I am sure that he meant clarification of nationality. We do not have citizenship in the European sense and if the hon. Member waits for that before we have identity cards he will have to wait a long time.
Many people carry identity cards in the form of driving licences or authorisation connected with electricity boards or other public corporations. In Northern Ireland one needs identification to gain entry to many places. I do not know whether that proves or disproves my argument, but many people carry identification as an employee of a particular organisation.
The security forces have pictures of the people they want. I shall not go into the analysis of those pictures, which are to be found in "ops" rooms throughout the country. Wanted people come in cars having grown beards and equipped themselves with a false identity. Although there may be value in identity cards, they would not make it impossible for such people to assume a false identity.
We are not short of information about whom we want. Identity cards would not mean that those chaps would put wigs on and grow beards to go through road blocks, saying "Here's my identity card showing that I have changed my mode of living in the past couple of years".
§ Mr. PowellThe point is, if we think of it in terms of passports, that although it would be possible to obtain a new passport with one's new face it would be a considerable obstacle to changing one's appearance to be obliged to prove one's identity with a document bearing a photograph that cannot easily or frequently be altered.
§ Mr. ReesI am sure that the Provisional IRA would set up a factory to 1993 make it possible for its members who are about their business in Northern Ireland to have not only a changed look but the appropriate documentation to pass themselves off. That is one of the differences about the problem in Northern Ireland compared with war time. It is a major factor that my security advisers take into account.
The question of the use of identity cards must be put in the context of the type of violence we have in Northern Ireland—the sectarian murders, the bombing, the killings, the interfactional assassinations, all of which look different when reported in the newspapers. Sometimes a killing that looks like a sectarian assassination I know to be an inter-factional assassination. People say of the person killed "Never been involved in anything in his life". All of us living in Northern Ireland know that situation.
Identity cards were a feature of life in the Second World War. I am not sure whether they were generally used in the First World War—I made these notes as I listened to the debate—but they were a major factor in the points system of rationing in the Second World War. When people got married they needed the cards to obtain points for utility furniture, for example.
The work done by Mr. Bevin at the Ministry of Labour and National Service was a major part of the war effort, and the identity card was part of the apparatus of life in using all the manpower and resources of the community. It must have had a bearing on the strict security situation, but I am sceptical about its importance in that regard. I believe that the value of the card was much more in the apparatus of life. One was in a community where the vast majority had one sole aim—victory. We were not in a divided community in which large numbers of people were against the community's essential aim.
Identity cards were not used in the context of the security situation. They had a much more deep-seated role in the last war. Many people choose to forget this and to think that the war was won at the sharp end. While I give credit to those at the sharp end, the blunt end was one of the most important elements 1994 in the last war. Identity cards were part of the apparatus.
We must not work on the assumption that because we won the last war and had identity cards, to have them now would mean that we would immediately win, after the seven years of urban and guerrilla warfare. In this situation complete support is not forthcoming from one part of the community. I mentioned detention and internment. The fact that we had internment under the Special Powers Act and then detention under the Emergency Provisions Act, the fact that 10,000 people could be protesting in Belfast, 3.000 people protesting outside the Maze and large number in Londonderry and other smaller places in the Province was a sign that whatever the Government of the day were doing on behalf of the community as a whole they certainly were not accepted by a sizeable part of the community in Northern Ireland. We shall see whether we shall get the dustbin lids banging again and a part of the community saying that it does not support the Government in what they are doing to deal with the problem of violence in Northern Ireland.
For identity cards to work properly they have to be accepted and used by the community as a whole. We are operating against para-military groups, against intimidation, control of pubs and clubs, rackets, easy money and women—with a smallish section of the community supported by many more.
From talking to the security forces I know of the problems they face in some rural areas when they are looking for half a dozen people who just disappeared. They cannot do that by hiding in the grass. They are supported and protected by people in the area. This is one of the factors which we did not have when we were organising the Second Front between 1939 and 1945.
There is one other matter in terms of the security situation. It is incredible how some of those involved in this grow affluent every day. That is another factor in the security situation. It is the nature of the organisation that they belong to. We are not in a world war situation. We are not talking in terms of landings and crossings of rivers. We are in a situation when part of the community is supporting the security forces while part is working 1995 against them. It is against this background that we must look at this point whether an identity card would aid the security forces rather than just reassure people who want something to be done in dealing with this blowing up and killing of people.
If the Government were satisfied that identity cards would improve the security situation we would introduce them. Security advice to me is clear and it is that such a scheme would not be helpful. We have re-assessed the situation only recently. I make that point in the context of a situation in which the whole community does not support the efforts being made by the security forces. This is the problem facing us. This is the major weakness we face in Northern Ireland.
§ Mr. BradfordI return to the question of defining nationality and, by inference, those who recognise the need to co-operate fully with Her Majesty's Forces. Will the right hon. Gentleman not accept that we are, to some extent, returning to the important question raised earlier, namely that of getting to know the people who matter? Will the Secretary of State not accept that those who show a marked reluctance to co-operate with Her Majesty's Forces must have a question mark placed by their names and must therefore be the subject of investigation, and perhaps even interrogation, because this will help in reducing the number of deaths? This is what the recommendation for identity cards is all about.
§ Mr. ReesI will say only that if it is a question of knowing whom we want in Northern Ireland, we know very well whom we want on both sides of the community. Therefore in terms of knowledge there is no problem. Getting the evidence to put them behind bars is the difficult thing.
It would be a new theory of citizenship that reluctance to support the Government should be a reason for not being a citizen of a country. To have been born inside a country is the basic reason for being a citizen of that country. Hon. Members may point at my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) but I do not know what is meant by this. My hon. Friend is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies because he was born in Northern Ireland.
1996 I think we are now moving to a new factor. A large number of people can also get passports—a slightly different aspect of citizenship. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, South for raising this point, because it muddies the water sufficiently to make it clear that Northern Ireland is different from the rest of the United Kingdom in loyalty. That is why one group of the community call themselves Loyalists, to distinguish themselves from those they feel to be not loyal to the community in the sense in which they understand the term.
The question is one of the use of identity cards to try to deal with the security situation. The purpose of identity cards is that all persons shall be required to carry them, and that they will provide a ready and sure means of identifying a person to those who are authorised to question him in that respect. I have made the point already that some sorts of identification cards obviously do that already.
In Northern Ireland, if we were to do this, the names, addresses and dates of birth of some 1½ million people would have to be compiled so that they were up to date and accurate. In my view, they would have to be more up to date and accurate than the cards we used in 1939–45. Some 1½ million cards would have to be prepared under secure conditions. They would have to be issued to the right people—and I would not be sure of that in some areas. The law would have to be amended. That would be quite simple, and could no doubt be done by Act of Parliament. I am trying now to assess what we would have to do.
Inevitably, there would be a large number of innocent people—I have to take this into account—who occasionally forgot their identity card. To be effective, the scheme would require a sanction for not carrying a card. This would not apply to the innocent but to those deliberately trying to put a boot in the machine. There would have to be a sanction. There would have to be a fine. The security forces would have to operate this sanction—keep the records and deal with the summonses. If a person lost his identity card—I can think of many who would lose them pretty quickly and deliberately—the security 1997 forces would need to have an elaborate system for notifying the loss to their people, and inquiries would have to be made before a replacement was issued. It would be added work for the security forces in Northern Ireland. The amount of labour involved would be substantial. Some of the work burden could be undertaken by civilians but the police and the Army, I am told, would have to divert men in order to look after the identity card scheme.
The main problem is that a system of identity cards is effective, within the limits that I have described, only if the community co-operates. If the whole of a community co-operates, enforcement is manageable. But I can imagine the Provisional IRA organising ritual burnings of identity cards in Londonderry on a scale which would make it difficult for the security forces to deal with the situation. That is an important matter to be taken into account in the administration of the scheme. The security forces would find themselves tied down in an even more static and defensive role. Those are the principal objections.
One point that has been made to me is that in Northern Ireland a high proportion of terrorists rely on cars. We have means of checking on cars, and such checking is done successfully with the aid of the driving licence which contains a picture, and so on. However, that by itself does not get us too far. Even though a great deal of crime is carried out by people with motor cars, the identification of the drivers of motor cars is not all that helpful in breaking down and dealing with the motor car terrorist, whether carrying the bomb or the gun. The Government will continue to keep the matter under review, but the security forces' advise at present is as I have mentioned.
Arrangements would have to be made to cover business men and tourists coming into the ports. I am sure that can be done. Temporary documents would need to be issued and people would be required to run the system. The police would have to carry the main burden.
How would we deal with the problem of the border? Presumably requests for documents would have to be made some time in advance. There is a great deal 1998 of criss-crossing for historical reasons. There would have to be a scheme for checking the bona fides of those coming in—and in a deeper way than is done now.
Would identification cards have stopped the bombs in Portrush? Would they have dealt with the situation in Dungiven when a soldier in the Hampshires was killed?
I am often sceptical of staff papers which are produced to me. They are done brilliantly. But I learned during six years of war to be sceptical of staff papers, because I was low enough down the line to be at the other end. They always looked good to those who wrote them, but they should have been the chaps at the other end carrying them out. I am sceptical of papers which are put to me, but I look at them to see how they would work in practice.
In my view, identity cards are not a particularly effective way of hindering the determined criminal, terrorist or spy. Documents issued on this scale are almost inevitably subject to forgery, loss and theft.
What is needed is a power to enable the security forces to establish a person's identity without doubt, and a sanction if he does not co-operate. The security forces have power to stop a person and question him about his identity by virtue of Section 16 of the Emergency Provisions Act. The value of identity cards would be to assist such questioning. But if they would lighten the load on the security forces in that direction, they would increase it in others.
The strong view of the security forces is against the identity card. Sometimes I hear people say that the Army is in favour of the identity card. The fact that a soldier or an officer, in talking to somebody in an area, is in favour of it is one thing. But the General Officer Commanding and his staff firmly put to me that they are against identification cards in Northern Ireland, and I take their view into account. Indeed, in this context I accept it. It is my decision at the end of the day. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State knows, I am reporting the advice that has been given to me.
Identity cards would not help in the difficult weeks ahead. We must look not only at the past but at what we might have to face within the next fortnight to 1999 see whether identification cards would help. In my view, the Provisional IRA has decided to up its campaign on the streets, as in Portrush, where it seems to believe that terrorising its fellow citizens will lead to a united Ireland. I believe that it will have the reverse effect. We may have trouble not only on the streets but in the prisons.
Identity cards would not help to deal with young people with shoulder bags. I talk about this generally, because I was not able to get over to Northern Ireland last evening. It seems that the police in Portrush are looking for youngsters on holiday carrying an Adidas bag or one with "Glasgow Rangers" printed on it. The police want to talk to youngsters who were dressed or were carrying bags in that way. I make no comment other than that. I merely say what they are looking for. Whether that were or were not the way in which the bombs were loaded, would an identification card have dealt with the situation? I do not believe that it would.
We are likely to have trouble in the prisons, with the aim of keeping special category status. It may be that there will be a strange alliance between the Provisional IRA and Loyalist paramilitary groups in the next few weeks, and we are ready to deal with that. In that situation I am convinced that, given the nature of the violence, identity cards might look good—they would make people feel that something was being done—but they would not deal with the basic security situation.
Until we get to the position in which we get the co-operation of more people in the community, not just because of intimidation—and I have to accept that it is there—we shall not win through. But we shall win through at the end of the day. Of that I have no doubt. There will be no backing down by this or any other Government of which I can think. We shall stand up to those who bomb, kill and murder, and to those who associate with them in private—and that happens on both sides of the divide.
The identification card is not the means for dealing with the situation. If the situation changes so that we need it, we shall have it, but the strong advice that I have, and the view that I put to the House, is that we should not at this moment have identification cards.