Voluntary Personal Security Cards (Hansard, 12 May 1993)

§ Mr. David Amess (Basildon)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the introduction of a system of voluntary personal security cards; and for connected purposes. Every Member of Parliament already enjoys the protection of his own personal security card. I hope that that principle can be extended throughout the country. There is much talk at the moment in all quarters about the fact that the Government should listen to what people are saying. I have no doubt in my mind that the Government are doing that already, but I do not believe that it is either good or sensible government automatically to develop policy, regardless of whether or not there is a strong belief in what people are saying. After all, Governments are elected on the basis of legislative proposals and a set of deeply held beliefs. I hope that on this occasion the Government will listen carefully to what both I and other law-abiding citizens are saying on this issue. If the Government agree, I very much hope that they will support the scheme.

One of the planks of the party to which I have always belonged is free choice, but that has never meant the freedom to choose which law to obey and which law to break. Both I, and many other citizens of this country, are appalled by the general level of criminality. The laws that we make in this place must be obeyed, but at the moment it seems to me, and to many other people, that the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens are fast being eroded. Even now, over 90 per cent. of the population are law-abiding. The country is therefore crying out for action to halt the millions of crimes that are being committed, which are costing the country an enormous amount of money.

Nothing, and no one, forces a person to break the law. It is very much a matter of individual responsibility or, should I say, lack of responsibility. That is why I believe that people should be allowed voluntarily to obtain a personal security card.

The Bill accepts in essence the recommendation that the Home Affairs Select Committee made in July 1990, when such a voluntary scheme was recommended to the Home Office. I am well aware of the arguments that are advanced against a compulsory scheme and I understand entirely the outrage that there would be if a law was passed, for instance, to make it an offence not to carry such a card. However, many parts of our lives in modern society require us to prove identity, so what could be more attractive to citizens than for them to take full advantage of the technology that is now available and to obtain voluntarily a personal security card?

The card could be used, for instance, to satisfy shopkeepers about identity when cashing cheques, or by landlords when querying drinkers' ages. It could be used for banking purposes or for recording information about organ donor status. It could also be used as a voluntary identification document to facilitate travel within the European Community and could become a model for a Community-wide card.

I have no doubt that a voluntary personal security card would help to combat fraud, illegal immigration and terrorism. The police would not have the powers to 812 demand production of the card, and the concerns that have been expressed about oppressive demands on minorities would not, I believe, arise. Nevertheless, when people are stopped by enforcement authorities for various reasons, they might see the advantage of holding a card to prove their identity.

Proper safeguards would be necessary to ensure data privacy and the Data Protection Registrar, the many other agencies and the associated authorities would need to be involved in the process. Citizens would have the right to have independent access to data contained on their cards and to challenge its accuracy.

I have complete confidence that many companies throughout the United Kingdom have the skill and sufficient technological imagination to produce a machine-readable security card at a very reasonable cost and I am sure that people would not mind purchasing them for a small price. My goodness, the general public pay enough money through the public purse to try to control the level of criminality.

Like the Home Affairs Select Committee, I believe that personal security cards, which use modern technology to incorporate information about the holder, could be a positive enhancement of liberty. Nothing could be more invasive than the exposure of someone's private credit card transactions, yet it has never been suggested on civil liberty grounds that we should abolish credit cards as a result of the exposure of people's lending limits.

British citizens are already well used to carrying cards and to identifying themselves before cashing cheques or borrowing library books, let alone crossing national boundaries. One card—a smart card—which allowed all that to be done and which contained data on the holder's medical records in case of emergency and for banking purposes would be of enormous benefit.

I believe that now is precisely the time to react positively to the widespread and deeply felt concern among the general public about the level of criminality. The voluntary scheme that I am proposing has many benefits for the individual and for the state. I am not aware of any objection to the principles and laws behind registering someone's birth or death. Why, then, can we not allow the period between those two points to be clearly identified? I hope that the Bill will start the necessary process towards the implementation of a scheme that could be another weapon in the serious war against crime in which we all, as citizens, have a part to play.