Identity Cards

HC Deb 11 November 2003 vol 413 cc171-87 12.30 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on identity cards and the publication of an explanatory paper, a copy of which is available in the Vote Office.

The Government have decided to begin the process of building a base for a national compulsory identity card scheme. We intend to proceed incrementally, starting by establishing a database and introducing new technology in passports and driving licences. As I explained in the policy paper published in July last year, a scheme of this scale and complexity would always have to be phased. As I said then, it will, by its very nature, take some time should the government decide to legislate to get the card into place. The House will know that since making my statement I have been consulting widely on, for instance, issues relating to secure verification and identification.

We are on entirely new territory here. It appears that many people think we are talking about an old-style card with a photograph; we are not. We undertook the consultation because of the enormity and pace of change. Such change makes it increasingly difficult to protect and authenticate the identities of those seeking work or trying to avail themselves of free public services—but the development of specific personal identifiers, known as biometrics, offers us an opportunity to do just that. It would mean that identity could not be forged or duplicated. Techniques such as fingerprinting, face recognition and use of the iris allow us to develop a database capable of foiling attempts to duplicate or steal identity. Such developments will enable us to deal with growing threats to the security and prosperity of Britain from identity theft, fraud and illegal migration.

Two developments have emerged since our earlier discussions of identity cards: the changed world in which we are operating, and the introduction of new biometric identifiers. There is almost universal international support for the idea of developing such identifiers. The United States, for instance, is about to introduce a scheme requiring people to have biometric passports if they wish to benefit from existing visa waivers. Those without them will increasingly find themselves exploited and targeted by international criminals. In such circumstances public demand for action would become overwhelming, and without these developments Britain would have missed an opportunity to protect ourselves and promote the best interests of individuals and families.

The security services have indicated to me that they would value improved methods of verifying identity and counteracting the use of multiple identities. It is obvious that terrorist networks would target the countries that had made the least progress in developing the capacity to provide this protection.

All of us know that identity fraud costs us dear. As individuals, as corporate entities and as a nation, we are open to tremendous exploitation. It is therefore common sense to prepare now for the future.

As I have indicated, it would not be possible to issue cards to the whole population through a big bang approach, even if that were desirable. We therefore intend to proceed in two phases. In phase 1, we would begin to issue biometric identifiers through the renewal of passport and driving licences. As I said in the consultation paper last year, as well as being convenient for the general population, building on the driving licence and passport systems would help to spread demand for the new documents and avoid delays in issuing them promptly". As soon as the database was available, we would commence issuing identity cards to EU and foreign nationals seeking to remain in the country. We would also make available an optional card for those who do not have, or wish to have, a passport or driving licence.

We will move ahead now with all the necessary preparation, but the final decision on a move to the second stage of the scheme, which involves compulsion, will rest with Parliament. Clearly, the Government will only take a step of that magnitude after a rigorous evaluation of the first stage, when we are confident that there is widespread take-up and acceptance of the scheme and that the benefits outweigh costs and the risks.

We would also need to be sure that the concessions were working satisfactorily for those on low incomes and other vulnerable groups. Finally, we would need to be satisfied that all the technical, financial and administrative preparations were in place for the final roll-out in order to deliver the benefits that we have described. Draft legislation will allow further consultation on all these issues.

Parliament would determine under strict criteria what identifiers were necessary on the chip contained in the card and, therefore, what should be held on the database itself. It would not be necessary, for instance, to hold the address of the individual on the face of the card, as with current driving licences, therefore reducing rather than increasing risk.

Let me now turn to a number of issues that I know have been of public concern. In relation to cost, were we to add biometrics to existing identity documents, which I think most people believe is inevitable, we would incur all the expense and the technological development necessary, but without securing the gains. These include clamping down on illegal residents, illegal working and the exploitation of free public services.

The ID card scheme will make it possible to make all these benefits available to those who might not need, or want, a driving licence or passport and who could not otherwise afford such an identity document. We will provide a free card for 16-year-olds, a concessionary charge for those on low incomes, including those in retirement, and the option of a lifelong card for those renewing at the age of 75—[Laughter.] Well, under Labour, you live longer.

We are also looking urgently at how benefits in the business and commercial world can further reduce the overall cost, again in a way that would not be possible by updating passports and driving licences.

To avoid accusations of underestimating the cost, we have chosen to build in a substantial contingency. We estimate that the basic cost, over a ten-year period, would be £35. All but a very small amount of that would be necessary in introducing biometrics in any case. The addition would be in the region of around £4, spread over the ten-year period. We will ensure that the basic cost of a card could be paid for by individuals in a variety of ways. Some people could choose to pay incrementally, through mechanisms such as saving stamps and credits.

Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)

On the never-never.

Mr. Blunkett

Yes, like BBC licences, for instance.

I emphasise that it will not be compulsory for anyone to have to carry the card with them, any more than it is with the driving licence today. Although use of the card would be very helpful to public services, it would not be necessary to present a card to access those services until the scheme became compulsory. Clearly, however, as the card will be the most reliable form of identity, gradually it will become commonplace and convenient to use it. Of course, no one will be denied access to emergency services because they do not have a card.

To protect the private details of individuals, Parliament will prescribe the information to be held on the chip and on the database. Information would be limited to that required to verify identity. Privacy and confidentiality would be an essential part of the system. The protection of civil liberties would be assured in a way that is not the case for a whole range of commercial identifiers and card systems in widespread use at the moment.

Let me make it clear: no one has anything to fear from being correctly identified, but everything to fear from having their identity stolen or misused. Focus groups and polling evidence demonstrate that there is around 80 per cent. support for identity cards. As the cost of secure identification will be necessary with or without ID cards, I believe that the proposals that I am setting out will win widespread support.

This is about asserting our sense of identity and belonging; about our citizenship; about reinforcing the balance between rights and responsibilities. That is why I commend this statement to the House and why I am asking for a sensible and thoughtful debate. This is all about addressing the future and having the courage to modernise and to take on the challenges of the 21st century.

David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden)

I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in allowing me advance copies of his statement and the paper. I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, who has now been promoted to shadow Chancellor after doing a brilliant job as shadow Home Secretary. I say to the Home Secretary that, inevitably, there will be a difference in style in the coming months and years, but I shall endeavour to extend to him just as much courtesy as did my predecessor.

Last summer, the Home Secretary announced that the Government were consulting on introducing identity cards. He stressed that they wanted an open and enthusiastic debate to take place across Britain. The loudest debate that I have witnessed is the internal argument in the Government, usually conducted via leaks to the Sunday newspapers.

The statement that we heard from the Home Secretary today is the result of that argument. It is a compromise and a 10-year deferral, designed to appease the Prime Minister and those in the Cabinet who support introducing ID cards, and the Foreign Secretary and others who believe that such a scheme will not work. Indeed, I have a copy of the now famous letter from the Foreign Secretary to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary said on the radio this morning that that letter is out of date—after four or five weeks. Let me quote from the Foreign Secretary's letter: I remain unconvinced by the overall policy. I believe that the proposed plan is flawed, and that no tinkering with particular issues will be able to resolve what is a fundamental political matter. There are two fundamental issues at the heart of the debate on ID cards: first, do they work, and secondly, what are the implications for civil liberties? On both counts, the Government have failed the test today. On the first issue, let me quote just one of the Foreign Secretary's five major attacks on this policy: we must be clear we will never be able to require from all people the production of a card to access employment or services. There will be large numbers of people who will be entitled to both without a card, starting with EU nationals, who will be able to stay and work here for three months without any official documentation. Other groups both of UK citizens resident abroad and other categories of third-country nationals will also need exceptions. This is an obvious loophole for illegals to exploit, given poor security of some EU documents. So my first question to the Home Secretary is: what is his response to that criticism, and will ID cards really tackle illegal immigration? The Home Secretary says that it will not be compulsory to carry the cards, so what happens when the police stop somebody in the street who does not have an ID card, which, under his proposals, would be perfectly legal? What will the police officer do? Will he ask them to bring their card to a police station in, say, five days' time? The innocent law-abiding citizen will of course do exactly that, despite the inconvenience. The illegal immigrant, however, will just disappear. So the second question is, does the Home Secretary really think that this is a workable proposal?

What of the terrorist threat that the Home Secretary referred to? How would an ID card have prevented the events of 11 September? He accepts in his proposals that foreign nationals will be able to spend three months at a time in the United Kingdom without an ID card. Does he seriously think that foreign terrorists having to divide their visits to the UK into three-month periods—or, even more simply, having to change their foreign documents every three months—will much handicap them? How does he intend to deal with that?

The Home Secretary also mentioned benefit fraud. As a former Public Accounts Committee Chairman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh!"] Clearly, this is not known on the Government Benches. As a former PAC Chairman, I can tell him that the vast majority of social security fraud results from people making false claims about their health or economic circumstances, not about their identity. I am not sure what difference the scheme would make in this regard, either.

The second major issue is, what are the implications of all this for civil liberties? Here, the Home Secretary's statement and his paper are worryingly opaque. Two questions need to be answered. First, precisely what information will be held at any time on compulsory ID cards? Secondly, who will have access to them? The implication of his statement and his paper is that Parliament will be asked to vote on the principle of an ID card, and that the details will be introduced later by regulation. That is unacceptable. We cannot approve ID cards on the basis of vague promises and generalisations. The Home Secretary will no doubt try to reassure us on the question of who has access to information on the cards. But when the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 was introduced, we were told that only the police and a few agencies would have access to private communications. Now, that list has been expanded massively, by regulation, to include bodies ranging from local authorities to the Post Office. I fear that exactly the same encroachment of state interference in private lives will happen if ID cards are introduced in this country.

This Government do not have a track record of respect for individuals and their privacy, or, indeed, for their reputations. We have witnessed in many affairs—such as those involving Pam Warren, Rose Addis and Martin Sixsmith—the Government's willingness to seek and to use private information against ordinary people. There is nothing in today's statement about serious safeguards to prevent such abuses from happening again.

There are huge costs associated with this policy, but the Government have failed to advance any convincing arguments as to why these cards should be introduced. This is a compromise and a massive deferral. It is the latest headline-grabbing initiative to cover splits in the Government. As the proposal stands, it will not stop terrorists, catch fraudsters or deter illegal immigrants, but it will cost the taxpayer billions.

Mr. Blunkett

I should genuinely like to welcome the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis)—and, of course, his colleagues—to his place on the Front Bench. I do so genuinely in the spirit of knowing that there will be a different style of opposition. I also wish his predecessor good fortune in his new role: he always did his homework, he was always thoughtful and he always had something meaningful to say at the Dispatch Box. I rest my case.

Are we clear about whether the right hon. Gentleman is, in his first outing, in favour of moving forward, first, to introduce biometric identifiers to existing documents and, secondly, to make them universal by introducing compulsion and having an ID card, or is it a matter of being against deferral? There was a contradiction in what the right hon. Gentleman said. If someone is against deferral, they should by all means come forward with a set of suggestions about how to issue more quickly the biometric identifiers and therefore a card that would work or to clarify whether it should be introduced outside the passport and driving licence framework, which allows us to proceed in a phased, incremental and technologically acceptable way.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Foreign Secretary's concerns, but I have been able to meet all of them. The specific concerns were about issues surrounding EU nationals. We have been able to satisfy the EU that it is perfectly feasible to translate the residence permit into an ID card, and we will do so. Anyone staying in this country more than three months will, wherever they come from, be issued with an ID card, and I hope to proceed with that as soon as the system is up and running. All the other concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, including the numbers to be dealt with.

I am now bound to move on to the question of the benefits. There will be no exemptions from the scheme. That is what compulsory means: when it is introduced, there will be no exceptions, so no one can defraud the system or pretend to be someone else. Illegal migrants would not only have to present the card if they wanted to work, but would have to do so if they wanted to draw on existing services. Given that we have a free national health service and that the current chairman of the Conservative party advocated an NHS card only a few months ago, I presume that such a card would have to be universal and compulsory to stop illegal migrants accessing it.

As to the police, there would have to be safeguards, but we would have to give them the ability to require acquisition of the card if they believe that someone has committed an act that amounts to an arrestable offence. That seems a perfectly sensible way forward, and with the use of new technology, the biometric could be taken in or out of the station. That is how we are currently developing the livescan system.

The right hon. Gentleman raised a very serious issue about terrorism. I said in my statement that the security services had informed me that they thought that the card would be valuable. They did so because a third of known terrorists and terrorist network supporters use multiple identities in this country in order to ply their dreadful trade by raising money and providing support. That is the basis on which I believe that an identity card of the sort that we are outlining today would make a difference.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about fraud and benefits. In fact, I did not say "benefit fraud"; I said "fraud", referring to the £1.3 billion lost through private and public fraud. If we are talking about benefits, I have never ever publicly indicated that an ID card would solve benefit fraud or be a major contributor to solving it, though we believe that about £100 million a year would be saved in benefit and related systems from introducing an ID card.

Finally, there is the question of civil liberties. Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is right that we need to set out what will be on the card and how it will operate. Incidentally, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act did not lay down a series of tight parameters which were then expanded. The Act did not lay any down, and the parameters were being operated in the private sector. It was the private sector that required us to lay down by order, rather than in the legislation, the areas that required regulation under the 2000 Act. I hope that, when the right hon. Gentleman feels more secure in his shadow post, he will catch up with the crucial details that make a difference.

The central question that the right hon. Gentleman asked me was whether the civil liberties issues and the requirements on the chip in the card and on the database would be spelled out in the Bill. The answer is yes. However, if we are not clear this afternoon about where the official Opposition stand on whether the scheme is being delayed too long or on whether it amounts to too much, perhaps they could enlighten us later. They could explain how they square their position with the apposite words said on 23 September 2001: Britain is the easiest country in Western Europe in which criminals and terrorists can lose themselves. If we are serious about tackling this problem there is one obvious remedy—identity cards. Those were the words of the new leader of the Conservative party.

Mr. Mark Oaten (Winchester)

I thank the Home Secretary for advance notice of his statement, although the contents would, frankly, have been no surprise to anyone, because he seems determined to push ahead with ID cards despite considerable opposition from his own party. As was not the case with the official Opposition, I want to make the Liberal Democrat position crystal clear: we are fundamentally opposed to ID cards.

The Home Secretary plans a stage-by-stage approach. Can he confirm that he will review each stage, and that if the changes to passports and driving licences that he plans result in major difficulties, he will abandon his plans to move ahead with ID cards? He has been able to provide us with the cost to individuals of ID cards, but can he give a commitment today on the Floor of the House that the new passports will not increase in cost for individuals? He has great faith in the use of biometrics, but can he confirm that he has no plans to introduce ID cards without biometrics? On ID cards themselves, does he acknowledge the problems surrounding the falsification of cards and the false sense of security that can be created in respect of terrorism?

Finally, can the Home Secretary provide information on the costs to Government of the initial phase that he is planning and the projected costs of introducing ID cards? Does he not recognise that the billions of pounds involved in the ID card project would be much better spent on providing more police in this country to make our streets safer and tackle crime? That is what the public want—not a card that will do nothing to tackle fraud or terrorism.

Mr. Blunkett

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post. As applies to all Liberal Democrats, the freedom to change one's mind comes frequently and often—and that applies to ID cards. The hon. Gentleman, now representing the Liberal Democrats, was in favour of ID cards when he voted in favour of a ten-minute Bill less than a year ago. He is certainly, in his own words, "fundamentally opposed": he is fundamentally opposed to anything that gets in his opportunist way. That is what it is all about.

Mr. Oaten

Answer the question.

Mr. Blunkett

So let us deal with the questions. Will we refuse to increase the charge for new passports? How could we possibly say here, now, that there will be no new charges for new biometric passports in the future? What a very silly hon. Gentleman. Of course we cannot give such a guarantee, but the real issue is whether the Liberal Democrats want to block the introduction of biometrics in passports. If that happened, how on earth would we be able to deal with the American situation that I outlined, and the development—just beginning in the Schengen countries—of biometric visas and ID cards? I thought that the Liberal Democrats were in favour of Schengen and Europe-wide developments—or is that another fundamental principle that they have abandoned this afternoon?

No, we will not introduce non-biometric ID cards. That was what the hon. Gentleman asked me. Yes, we will be able to deal with falsification. The creation of a database on which the specific identifier will be held will prevent people from being able to duplicate identities, or to pretend to have someone else's identity, because it will be possible to check that against the database.

The hon. Gentleman asked about initial costs. We have estimated total set-up costs and revenue over the first three years at around £36 million, £60 million and £90 million, respectively. Finally, he asked whether it would not be better to spend the money on more police. I thought that the Liberal Democrats were mounting a campaign claiming that council taxes were far too high. I thought that they were preparing for next year, when they would say that local councils should not raise too much money, and that central Government should meet more in the way of costs. The charge under debate will be met by each person who receives a card for a service from which he or she will benefit.

Is that cost to be met through national or local taxation, according to the Liberal Democrats? How will they explain to electors that money raised through a greater charge on the council tax is to be diverted to pay for the biometric ID, passport or driving licence, and that it will not be used to pay for local policing? Of course they do not know how they will explain that, as they are totally confused and muddled.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is now time for questions from Back-Bench Members. I must inform the House that hon. Members must ask only supplementary questions, and that they must keep their questions brief.

Mr. John Denham (Southampton, Itchen)

I can tell my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the Home Affairs Committee agreed this morning to hold an inquiry into all aspects of the scheme, including the practicalities of the draft legislation. However, does he agree that there is an issue of principle confronting Parliament? We wish to live in a world where millions of people can move in and out of the country every week, for work, business and leisure. At the same time, we want to ensure that valuable public services—education, health, the benefits system and housing—are available only to those who are entitled to them, and that those who work here meet their obligations to pay tax and national insurance. Is not the issue of principle that there must be an effective system of personal identification? That would ensure that people were free to travel, and that individuals had clear entitlements and obligations.

Mr. Blunkett

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. That is precisely the issue that the rest of the developed world is addressing. We must not be left behind, so that is why we acting today to ensure that we address the matter openly and sensibly.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)

Will the Home Secretary accept that the latest technology must be used if the new identity cards are introduced, and that complaints about biometric developments are beside the point? However, both history and logic tell us that an effective system requires that carrying an identity card is compulsory for everyone. Is not that the principle with which he must come to grips—whether he is prepared to breach people's civil liberties and make carrying the card compulsory?

Mr. Blunkett

On his first question, the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right: biometrics are going to be with us, with or without ID cards. On his second question, the Government have accepted the principle that he outlined, and we are clear that to achieve the full effect—on illegal working and the illegal use of free public services—we would have to move to compulsion. I accept that.

Andrew Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

Does my right hon. Friend accept that he is naive if he expects the Home Office to be able to introduce this card without major problems arising, given its track record? Is not he naive also in thinking that criminals will not find a way to subvert the system? Is not the fundamental problem that carrying a card must be made compulsory, and that people will have to have it with them at all times? Otherwise, it will not deliver all the benefits that he hopes for.

Mr. Blunkett

I do not accept my hon. Friend's final point—not least because it will be possible to reference the identifiers against the ID base, without using the card. That will be a technological change for the future.

My hon. Friend spoke about the problems involved in introducing the card, but every Department—not least my own—faces a challenge when introducing and developing technology. However, it should be noted that, although the UK Passport Service faced huge difficulties, the satisfaction rate that it achieves is now 99 per cent. Also, we are turning around work permits in 24 hours. So there is hope for the Government, and it is possible for public service to work. We intend to make sure that it can work.

On my hon. Friend's second question, of course organised criminals will attempt to duplicate the cards fraudulently. However, it will be a major challenge to duplicate the irises of people's eyes, or all three biometric identifiers. Any Government who do not believe that they should take on and defeat those people are desperate and despairing.

Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden)

Will the Home Secretary confirm that all asylum seekers already must have an identity document, that all have been fingerprinted since July 1993, and that no illegal immigrant can obtain benefits or work legally without a unique national insurance number? To get such a number, people need to claim asylum, and present the relevant documents. The Home Secretary does not require anyone to carry the documents to which I have referred, so how will extending the requirement to possess an ID card to British citizens help to control illegal immigration one iota?

Mr. Blunkett

I can certainly confirm that I introduced the asylum registration card for asylum seekers, but I must contradict the right hon. Gentleman on one point: from 2000, all asylum seekers who presented themselves to the authorities were fingerprinted, but the fingerprinting facility was not automatically available from 1993 onwards.

I can confirm too that our scheme will catch illegal residents, immigrants and workers. I did not mention asylum seekers. The ones who will be caught will not be able to identify themselves; if they try, however, it will be possible to show that the relevant identifier is not present in the database.

Mr. Gwyn Prosser (Dover)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Dover, on this side of the channel, are overwhelmingly in favour of compulsory identity cards? More important, police and immigration officers in France, on the other side of the channel, cite Britain's lack of an ID regime as the primary pull factor that attracts illegal immigration over here.

Mr. Blunkett

I can confirm entirely that, whenever Britain raises the issue of the pull factor on illegal migration or asylum, other countries in Europe point decisively to the fact that we do not have an ID card scheme. That is the experience of previous Governments too. Our scheme will be materially different from, and much more secure than, the schemes that operate in Europe at present. To make their systems more secure, other countries are moving towards the provisions that we have set out today—namely, the use of specific identifiers.

Lady Hermon (North Down)

I may not be exactly a David Trimble lookalike, but I can say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), that Ulster Unionist Members support ID cards—at least those of us who take the party Whip do. I can say that because no one else is here.

May I remind the Home Secretary that long hours were spent on the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, which introduced electoral identity cards in Northern Ireland, because thousands of people, especially elderly women, did not have driving licences or passports? Will the Home Secretary, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, include electoral identity cards in the biometric technology?

Mr. Blunkett

First, may I say that the hon. Lady looks fine from where I am standing?

I shall talk to the Deputy Prime Minister about the hon. Lady's proposal as it has wider implications, but I think she is right to say that there should be links to electoral registration. That would be very welcome indeed.

Mr. Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green)

I am a convert to the idea so I understand that people may have anxieties. My constituents tell me that they do not want an excessive charge, but they are fed up with the excessive charges made on them at present due to people who illegally use our public services and put extra strain on the police and security forces. Is not that what we need to tackle?

Mr. Blunkett

My hon. Friend is entirely right. His comments are reinforced by an hon. Member who told me at the last Home Office questions that taxpayers have an equal right to be able to ascertain the identities of those citizens who wish to claim benefits…I wish him well."— [Official Report. 27 October 2003; Vol. 412, c. 18.] That individual—the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) —has just been appointed to the Opposition Front Bench. I agree with both of them.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

While I acknowledge that there may be policing and other benefits from identity cards, I am troubled by the civil rights implications. Does the Home Secretary understand that many of us suspect that in order to make the policy effective he will require the compulsory carriage of the card at all times and the production of the card to a police officer, and that he will have to give police officers the right to arrest in the event of non-production? Surely, that will be sus writ large, with all the associated abuses and problems, so will the Home Secretary give the House a guarantee that the requirements that I have just mentioned will not be incorporated in his proposals?

Mr. Blunkett

Such requirements will not be incorporated because it is not necessary. The police have told us that if they suspect that someone is undertaking something that is an arrestable offence, they would require proof of identity. If the person could not prove their identity, the police would of course apprehend them and would try to find out their true identity. The point of the card is not the card itself, but that it offers an authorised method of proving true and verifiable identity. That is at the root of what we are trying to do.

Mr. Kevin Hughes (Doncaster, North)

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Is he aware that there is a great deal of support for his proposals, not least from members of the Labour party? In a survey that I made recently of Labour party members in my constituency, 92 per cent. were in favour of the proposals. Their message to me and my message to my right hon. Friend is, "Get on with it as soon as possible".

Mr. Blunkett

I always feel better when I know that I have the Labour party behind me.

Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion)

Now that the Government have come clean about this identity tax—a poll tax to end all poll taxes—is not it clear that one piece of identity fraud has been revealed: the fraud that the Labour party is the party of civil liberties, personal freedom and the rights of individuals in this country? If the Government go ahead with their proposals and make them compulsory, what guarantees of civil liberty will we have? Will we have a written constitution? Will we have a right of access to personal information held about us by the Government? Will we have the right to privacy? Those questions need to be answered before we tackle compulsion for ID cards.

Mr. Blunkett

If it were heat not light that we wanted to emerge from the Welsh nationalists, we should all be well away.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is clear. As I indicated, Parliament will lay down what will be on the chip and on the database. Parliament will determine the civil liberties protections. I have already spelled out the fact that we do not expect the chip or the database to hold more information than is already required for passports and driving licences. One would have to be particularly wild to suggest that passports and driving licences have taken away people's liberties—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is wild".] Yes, my hon. Friends are probably right.

Tony Wright (Cannock Chase)

I recently discovered my identity card, which was issued in 1948, and feel that I was neither more nor less free then than I am now. Is not a lot of nonsense talked about the civil liberties side of the matter? The only issue that really matters is whether the system will work, and for it to work it will have to be compulsory. Surely that is not an add-on extra; it is integral to the scheme.

Mr. Blunkett

That is precisely why I sought the agreement of the Cabinet to the principle, and that agreement was secured. I agree with my hon. Friend. After all, only a few months ago, Frederick Forsyth, whom I respect as a writer although not as a political thinker, and I both had our identities stolen. In my case, bizarrely, it was so that the BBC could demonstrate that it could obtain a driving licence in my name. Well, good luck.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)

Did I understand the Home Secretary correctly when he said that someone who did not produce a card would be taken, under compulsion, to the police station? It seems logical. But what about the millions of mothers on the school run, for example, who pick up primary school children'? If they fail to carry their card, will they be taken to the police station? These proposals hit at—

Mr. Blunkett

rose—

Mr. Shepherd

No, no, Home Secretary.

The proposals hit at the very sense of liberty of British citizens who have the freedom to move around without being impeded in perfectly lawful tasks.

Mr. Blunkett

I can definitely, definitely confirm that picking one's child up from school is not an arrestable offence, nor will it require people to carry the card or to present it— as long as the teachers know which child they are handing over to which parent.

David Winnick (Walsall, North)

I, for one, welcome the Cabinet discussion that took place; it was a good thing for the democratic process. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that those of us who strenuously oppose the proposals do not believe that an identity card will bring about what he has been describing? If it would do so, I should be willing to change my mind, especially in respect of terrorism. I hoped that the scheme would be dropped, but as it has not been I accept that this is the best possible compromise until—shall we say?—another time.

Mr. Blunkett

I am grateful for the qualified support of my hon. Friend. There are people who genuinely disagree with the whole principle as regards where we are going—even on biometrics. There are those who disagree with the previous scheme, which did not include biometrics, identifiers and safeguards. I believe that my hon. Friend was opposed to the latter scheme and I hope eventually to be able to win him over.

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)

The Home Secretary is setting great store by the value of biometrics, but what evidence is there that criminal gangs and sophisticated terrorists will not get ahead of the technology and produce workable forgeries that will render this oppressive exercise both expensive and pointless?

Mr. Blunkett

I have to work with the best advice available and currently it would be extraordinary if even the most sophisticated criminals could duplicate identities in the way that has been described. We are not simply talking about duplicating what is on the chip, but what is on the database. When the card is presented, what is read on the screen must accord with what is on the database. If it does not match, that person is automatically disqualified.

Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak)

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the kind of totalitarian state envisaged by George Orwell does not spring up overnight. He needs to proceed cautiously with this venture. In what way did the consultation on entitlement cards inform the decisions that he has told us about in the statement today?

Mr. Blunkett

We consulted for a year. We had a lot of local consultation, including using local radio and local newspapers. One of the reasons why we now describe the card as an ID card is precisely that public opinion showed that people were clear about what that term means and that they prefer it to the term, "entitlement card". We also undertook focus groups across the country, all of which, whatever their ethnicity and socioeconomic make-up, produced the same level of support and very similar questions.

Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham)

Does the Home Secretary acknowledge the criticism made by his colleague, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has pointed to the extreme technological sophistication of the information technology that would be required and the fact that the National Audit Office says that only 30 per cent. of such systems have ever succeeded in the past? What assurances has the right hon. Gentleman had from those in the IT industry that they can make the system operate other than at vast cost to the taxpayer?

Mr. Blunkett

We now have an entirely new process in place. The Office of Government Commerce undertakes gateway reviews. We have been through a pre-zero gateway review already—we would not have reached this stage without doing so—and we will go to the next stage of the gateway review and clearance in January. We will not proceed—this will need to be done in parallel with the Bill—to set up the system until the further stage has been gone through later next year and we are satisfied, both internally and from external verification, that the scheme can and will work. We will have to do that to introduce biometrics in passports. My hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration will shortly announce a pilot programme for biometrics in passports, just as we have already begun a pilot programme for biometrics in visas.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central)

Is it not axiomatic that those on the left should defend the welfare state? Does the Home Secretary agree that no welfare state can be sustainable unless it prescribes and defines those who are entitled to its services? Can he give any indication or estimate of the number of people or the cost to the health service of people using it who are not entitled to do so?

Mr. Blunkett

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who helpfully joined us earlier, for which I was grateful to him, is undertaking such work. He and I believe that we could be talking about hundreds of millions rather tens of millions of pounds. We know of no way, nor did the Opposition until today, to protect us from the misuse of those free services other than to have a form of identification that entitles people to use them by dint of being citizens of this country, not for another reason. Given that we have the only free health service in the world, such a system would be a major safeguard against those who would want to erode the health service and those who would use any excuse to encourage people to be against that free service. Such a system would ensure that we protect the health service from those who misuse it.

Angela Watkinson (Upminster)

Identity cards would be very effective in controlling those law-abiding people who volunteer to have them and who hold legal driving licences and passports, but those people do not need identifying and controlling. The challenge is to control criminals and those people who are in this country illegally, so how will the Home Secretary overcome the problem of fraudulently held cards and those people who hold no cards at all and who work cash in hand?

Mr. Blunkett

There are two reasons why the full benefits cannot be attained without compulsion. The crucial issue is not presenting a card, but verifying the identity on the database. Someone could pretend to be someone else, but they could not do so once the card had been swiped and their identity had been shown to be false on the database. That is the crucial difference, and I will clearly have to explain it time and again over the years ahead. This is not a photograph on an old-fashioned card, but the ability to use a database—as with credit cards, loyalty cards and a plethora of commercially available cards, which often do not have the safeguards that we are talking about—to identify whether people are who they say they are, and those who believe that the commercial sector should not be doing that need to say so.

Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East)

The Home Secretary will be aware, as his earlier responses show, that the commercial sector is developing schemes to link identity to uniqueness. Given the history of leading-edge technology not delivering the objectives set, will he give an assurance that he will work with the private sector in considering authentication standards and that he will consider a dispersed system, rather than a single database, which, once breached, is the least secure form of database?

Mr. Blunkett

Now that we have agreed the principle and I have reported to Parliament, we can open serious discussions with the commercial sector in relation not simply to the justified safeguards to which my hon. Friend refers, but to the commercial possibilities for Britain in being ahead of the game worldwide, as other countries rapidly move to adopt similar systems. If we can do that, we will have a double gain of protecting our people, while promoting our economic and trade interests.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk)

The Home Secretary has said a great deal about driving licences and passports, but what about other official forms of ID, such as military identification cards, Government passes and MPs' passes? Can they not be configured so that they can contain biometric data?

Mr. Blunkett

Yes they can, which is why the Secretary of State for Defence is so strongly in favour of the proposals and has been helpfully supportive of me in the consultation process.

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)

As a third of all taxpayers' money goes in supporting the social security budget, does the Home Secretary accept that that budget above all others offers the richest pickings to those gangs specialising in identity fraud? Will he therefore give us some idea of when he expects the Government to be able to introduce the first ever secure gateway to our benefits system? That will not only give huge financial gains—perhaps enough to pay for this programme—but increase substantially the support for the welfare state that already exists in the country because taxpayers will know that their taxes are going where they should go.

Mr. Blunkett

I accept entirely the principle enunciated by my right hon. Friend. People will want that security. I cannot give an exact date, partly because of the issues that have been raised this afternoon, but not by my right hon. Friend. It is very strange that the people, including those in the press, who have berated me for being too slow ask all the types of question rightly asked this afternoon that indicate that we have to take our time to get it right. Starting now allows us to be ahead of the game; starting in five years' time would take us five years down a road on which we would have to adopt all the same careful steps that I am enunciating this afternoon.

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)

Given the issues involved and the difficult compromises between civil liberties and effectiveness in tackling benefit fraud and so on, would it not be appropriate for the proposals to be decided on a free vote in the House?

Mr. Blunkett

At the moment, I have not got round to the nature of the voting pattern, but I am delighted to say that I will have with me a number of Opposition Members—Front Benchers, as well as Back Benchers—if we have a free vote. I have mentioned two of them this afternoon: the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove. I am encouraged that, with all sorts of doubts and concerns, Labour Back Benchers are united today in believing that we need to move to a modern era, to take on the challenge of the future. That is very encouraging indeed.

Mr. Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne and Sheppey)

As the House knows, I have an interest in technology, although I am not a technologist. There are 80 million cellphones in the United Kingdom, with 80 per cent. coverage—much more than passports or driving licences. Can biometrics be used in cellphones? Will my right hon. Friend consider that as a way to add to the identity system?

Mr. Blunkett

I do not want to be totally facetious, but they would have to work a damn sight better than my mobile phone works.

Mr. Colin Challen (Morley and Rothwell)

I welcome my right hon. Friend's incremental approach to this subject. Of course, the brand-new thing being proposed is the introduction of encrypted information on the cards. Will he consider setting up some kind of independent regulator, such as the Data Protection Registrar, who could be approached by members of the public who want to check the contents of their cards, because that has been a very important aspect of controlling data protection until now?

Mr. Blunkett

First, the commissioner has offered to work closely with us in making sure that what we do is compliant. Secondly, I have made it clear that Parliament must lay down what is held on the chip, and that anything held on the chip over and above that would be illegal if we had not authorised it. In years to come, individuals may request that their cards hold their emergency treatment requirements, but that will be a different matter entirely.

Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West)

The Home Secretary is well aware of my strong support, and that of my constituents, for his proposals. Can he tell the House what comments he has received so far from the police in relation to the concept of the introduction of ID cards?

Mr. Blunkett

The police service at every level are in favour of them, and they understand the parameters, as I have laid them down this afternoon, within which they would work.

Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley)

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as an old-fashioned socialist who believes in state provision from the cradle to the grave and the planned economy that is necessary for that provision, I believe that it is essential that we have some idea for whom and for how many we are providing? An identity scheme could help us to do just that and to cut out the cost of those who do not qualify.

Mr. Blunkett

I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend and I agree with the thrust of her question. I shall reserve my position for the future and think about the question of the planned economy.