Identity Card Scheme

HL Deb 07 July 1993 vol 547 cc1464-75

7.10 p.m.

Baroness Sharpies rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider introducing a national identity card scheme.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, because of the large number of speakers in tonight's one-hour debate, I shall not go into any great detail regarding the proposed scheme to introduce national identity cards. The honourable Member for Basildon has a Private Member's Bill in another place and has been most helpful in advising me on the many aspects of such a scheme.

Technology already exists for a Smart card as proposed in the Association of Chief Police Officers' paper published in May. That card, with the basic identity within, can be rendered tamper proof and technologically secured. As all the information is on the card there is no centre base, which should satisfy those concerned with civil liberties.

With a multinational card that positively links the bearer with the information, details such as social security number, banking, organ donor status and so forth, could be included. The ACPO wishes to make the system voluntary because then it would not require an extension of police powers and the police would not have the power to demand production of the card. Anxieties in regard to oppressive demands on minorities would not arise.

In 1989 reaction to a national identity card was, to say the least, lukewarm, but today a rising crime rate, fraud and drug offences have made the police and the general public alter their views radically. I feel that we should respond to those concerns.

The estimated cost of setting up a scheme is £250 million; but that need not be borne by the Government. A number of firms are ready with a product; and surely there is also a vast market in Europe where cards in nine countries are either compulsory or voluntary but not, as I understand it, tamper-proof.

Can the Minister say why, if the DVLA under a European directive must produce licences with photographs, followed in 1999 with a mag stripe containing the vehicle number and offences, other government departments cannot follow the same path? I hear also that the DVLA is selling its computer facilities to a third party, as is the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security. Would it not be possible for an overall plan to be produced in this age of advanced technology?

Because of the obvious complexity and the need to explore practicalities, the thrust of contemporary arguments should be on the necessity for the Home Office to set up an independent body to look into the whole matter of voluntary identity cards. It has police support on grounds of identification and helping to combat crime. The costs perhaps cannot be properly estimated until an independent report is issued. Speculative figures of £250 million have been bandied about in relation to compulsory cards.

It is a new and exciting prospect with enormous potential. I therefore urge the Minister to give a lead arid to press forward with such a national identity card scheme. I thank in advance all noble Lords who are to speak, for contributing to this short debate. I am grateful for their interest in this important Question.

7.16 p.m.

Lord Mason of Barnsley

My Lords, I believe that the introduction of an identity card scheme is inevitable. It will be voluntary to begin with, I suppose, but mandatory to follow. Already within the European Community eight countries have ID card schemes and in five the possession of an identity card is mandatory. It is becoming a common European practice, and in keeping with harmonisation it will in due course be a normal practice here.

Why do the Government balk at its introduction? Indeed, the carrying of an ID card is becoming a necessity and accepted as such. Most large industrial and business enterprises request their employees to be so recognised. For example, the Civil Service has over 500.000 card carriers; British Gas, one company, has 80,000; in this Parliament building over 12,000 persons carry identity cards; and then there are the police and our armed forces.

The Association of Payment Clearing Services revealed that two years ago 73 per cent. of all adults had some form of plastic card, including credit cards and cheque cards. On the test of public opinion the last survey showed that 67 per cent. were in favour and only 20 per cent. against; even a poll of trade unionists showed 53 per cent. in favour. The vast majority of our people are now conditioned to ID card usage. On the questions of privacy and civil liberties most fears seem to have been allayed.

The Police Federation is in favour of a mandatory card scheme, as are the Superintendents Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers. 'They would support its introduction by the Home Office. Why does the Home Office refuse? Have not the Police Federation pointed out that there has been a massive rise in crime—drug smuggling, fraud and forgery. Crime has never been so prolific, so diverse in variety and so frightful in its lack of concern for life and property. In that atmosphere there is no point in complaining about the denial of democracy. Street rapes of women and children in broad daylight, muggers and armed robberies galore are a much bigger denial of democracy than an identity card.

The police believe that an ID card would be an extra means to tackle those growing forms of crime and another weapon in its armoury. Does not the Home Office have some sympathy with that point of view? Would it not help to detect illegal immigrants? Would it not enable a tighter, stricter control of the movements of suspected terrorists? Many of them come into Great Britain from the Republic of Ireland and the Province for all sorts of occasions, but in fact on terrorist missions. An ID card check at the ports and airports, although I recognise it would be a civil liberty nuisance, would hinder their movements and operations and be an added tool to the emergency provisions Acts.

The Government have argued that its introduction would be financially prohibitive. They mention that it would cost £350 million to introduce. If an Ill card system, with powers granted to the police to stop and check, could have thwarted one bomb blast in the City, it would have been well worth while. The Baltic Exchange blast cost insurers £350 million and the Bishopsgate bomb cost £400 million so I hope that the Home Office will reconsider its cost argument.

Perhaps the Minister might inform the House of the views of the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue, who reckon that they would benefit considerably, with the ID card discouraging social security fraud and tax evasion. Not only have public attitude surveys shown that the public are in favour of it, and—of crucial importance—the Police Federation too, who would be at the sharp end of its introduction and operation, but the Home Office is also aware that the majority of letters and representations are in favour.

The card should be free. Why not? The police powers of stop and check are essential if we are to have an effective, beneficial crime detection scheme. The ID card could initially be a simple version containing basic facts for easy identification: name, sex, date of birth, residence, photograph and signature. It is time that the Home Office gave more urgent and sympathetic consideration to introducing a mandatory ID card scheme. I believe that the voluntary phase is over. I believe that the nation is prepared to carry an ID card at all times. Most do it now. The police are convinced that it would have a successful impact on all forms of minor crime and be an added aid in checking major criminal activities. It would be an act of the greatest good for the greatest number. It would scare the crooks, the fiddlers and the fraudsters and our law-abiding citizens would have nothing to fear, but they would feel a lot safer.

7.22 p.m.

The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham

My Lords, I too support a voluntary based ID card of the Smart type outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharpies. I see no problem that cannot be overcome. With falling national barriers all over Europe, such a national scheme would be of tremendous help to our police service. I can see particular advantages in the card, whatever form it would take, in containing information such as allergies and the carrier's blood group, in case of accident and for identification.

Beyond those comments, I reiterate what I said on the subject on 23rd June last year. Having no desire to detain your Lordships any longer, I refer the House to cols. 406 and 407 of Hansard for that date.

7.23 p.m.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharpies, for this opportunity to put a few suggestions forward about a national identity card scheme.

During 1987 I chaired a working group on young people and alcohol for the Home Office Standing Conference on Crime Prevention. When we presented the report on 24th November of that year, there were many questions from the floor about our 50 recommendations. The publicans present were worried about the identification of young people, particularly girls, many of whom look older than their years, and some who are challenged because they look younger than 18, although many may be well on in their 20s. I suggested then that the best way would be to have recognised official identity cards. Many places brought in a voluntary card system for that purpose and there seem to be no problems.

I have discussed the use of identity cards with some of our Italian members of staff here in your Lordships' House. There seem to be no problems; in fact they told me that they can now use the ID card in place of a passport for European countries. The card is in a small wallet with a photograph, the name and number and date of birth. Now that we are part of Europe, we will look rather out of date if we cause a fuss about carrying an ID card. In fact, all noble Lords carry or have identification. People are used to cards of all kinds. Disabled people, with their disabled driver's badge, must have a photograph for identification. An ID card without a photograph would not be useful; they must have photographs.

With so much serious crime such as drug trafficking, terrorism and increased burglary and rape; with border barriers in Europe coming down, we should not delay in having ID cards. They will not stop crime but they may help a little. Any help is better than nothing, as the rising drug trade is expensive in human tragedies and to the economy as a whole.

One noble Baroness who spends some months each year in the United States of America told me that because she is over 50 she obtains benefits when she produces her ID card; for example, the price of ice cream is reduced. I hope that the Government will no longer sit on the fence over this matter. Modern technology today should be good enough to detect whether a card is forged. No doubt the Government will put that forward as an argument, but if they do, how is it that so many cards are used for identification for so many different reasons throughout the country?

7.28 p.m.

Baroness Seccombe

My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Sharpies raised the issue today. One of my earliest memories is of being presented with a silver bracelet which I wore throughout the war. It bore the inscription—and I remember it well today —my name, followed by the number QEJR 176/4. It certainly caused me no embarrassment and was quite decorative. On the other hand, I accept that, with the ending of the war, people who had lived with restrictions in so many areas of life were only too glad to have the freedom of putting all such matters behind them.

However, time has moved on and identification is required in many spheres. The need for security has changed basic thinking. Who would have thought, years ago, that Members of your Lordships' House would have passes and wear them? There can hardly be a person in the land who does not possess either a bank or credit card of some type. Some of us possess far too many cards and an industry has sprung up in the insurance of those cards. However, it seems to me that, in these days of high and ever increasing technology, it would not be beyond the wit of man to devise a card which might possibly have universal use.

My main reason for supporting the use of ID cards is the increase of crime. Sadly, we live in a society where most families have been affected or have relatives or close friends who have. I cannot accept the philosophy of those against the use of ID cards, seeing them as an infringement of their liberty. Anyone who is going about his or her legitimate business has nothing to fear, and I should be quite happy to produce my card, if requested. I feel that it would make this country a safer place, as it would act as a deterrent to would-be criminals. It would also benefit the elderly and the vulnerable who live with the fear of violent crime. It is that fear which causes them such distress.

I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I go further in support and say that I should be happy to have my fingerprints recorded. As a law-abiding citizen, I have nothing to hide and I should certainly not feel my civil liberties to be curtailed in any way by such a measure.

The debate about whether identity cards should be voluntary or compulsory would be fiercely contested, but I hope and believe that, with sensitive and sound argument, the public would accept a compulsory scheme. I frequently travel around the country, talking to groups, many of them women's groups. Almost without exception, the question of identity cards is raised. The groups are enthusiastic in their support for such a measure. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, for giving us the opportunity to debate the matter and I look forward to hearing the views of my noble friend the Minister.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Desai

My Lords, I rise to speak as someone who has not spoken before on this topic unlike the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham. I was not going to speak, but then I decided that I would do so for a rather obscure reason. I believe that there is a major problem about defining citizenship in this country. There is no clear definition. Paradoxically, contrary to what many people think who genuinely care for the liberty of the citizen, there is a great problem for people who have no visible way of establishing their citizenship, and I speak mainly of ethnic minorities.

My son tells me that many young people walking along the Holloway Road in Islington are frequently and unnecessarily stopped by the police. It would be simple for such people to flash an identity card and to say to the law, "Leave me alone. I am not what you think I am". It is a serious problem because for a great deal of the time people who are black, brown or yellow, whatever one wants to call them (I am sure that those descriptions are all politically incorrect) find themselves harassed. Each time I go through customs I am stopped because they believe I look suspicious, but I do not know why.

We are all used to carrying cards, as many noble Lords have already said. I carry four cards with photographs and a countless number of cards without photographs. Therefore, I believe that we are used to carrying photographs. What I am about to say may be slightly controversial so I apologise to any noble Lord who may be an expert lawyer in the matter. I found the recent case of Mr. John Matthews very peculiar. He is not a criminal because the police have been unable to prove any charge against him. But he is to be confined to one part of the United Kingdom. I do not think that anyone could do that if there were clearly-defined citizenship and rights for moving all over the country.

If I had an identity card I could say to the police, "If you have nothing against me to put me in some kind of custody, I have the right to move around the country". I would even accept a compulsory identity card, which would be a very good way of identifying a basic citizenship. Rather than restricting the liberty of the individual, for the first time it would establish clearly and unambiguously who was entitled to certain rights and who was not.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, for introducing this topic. We should speed ourselves towards this measure. The sum of £250 million sounds like a lot of money, but it is only £5 per person. It would provide a card which we could use for many years, and so it is not very much money.

7.35 p.m.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this matter. It aptly follows the report on identity cards published in May. There is only justification for the cost and effort of introducing cards if they are likely to be beneficial in reducing crime and in the identification of criminals, many of whom are difficult to identify and involve much expensive time of police officers trying to establish their correct identity.

I believe that it is the lifting of the frontier controls that has accelerated the need for IDs because it will be far easier in future for drug smugglers, terrorists and criminals to cross borders at will. The swiping of ID cards at borders would be an invaluable check to see which of these undesirables are moving about and where they are.

There are many advantages to the ID scheme. It will be possible in future to put on a Smart card ID some 3 million pieces of information. That could include every sort of personal detail such as fingerprints, DNA and whatever else may be used by then to identify. It could include driving licence, health card, credit card and almost anything else.

One of the weapons of the terrorist and the criminal is anonymity and many have several identities with which to confuse authority. Burglars would find it more difficult to represent themselves as officials to gain entry when a well-recognisable ID card had to be introduced. Almost anything can now be produced to simulate authority to enter, and who knows what the genuine one looks like.

ID cards could make a major impact on credit card fraud which at the moment is immense. Publicans would be able to check on the ages of those entering pubs. There are many other benefits and uses. Indeed, the value of the cards to the retail trade, the high street banks and the building societies would be so great that collectively they might well be prepared to sponsor their cost.

Of course, there are a number of disadvantages to the introduction of cards. Probably the main one is that while the law-abiding citizen would usually carry his card for the benefits that it brought. the criminal would not be likely to carry his around while aburglaring. That would be particularly the case with a system of voluntary cards. Perhaps my noble friend can suggest how that could be overcome. It does not achieve much if just the good guys carry cards.

Having said that, I lost all my chainsaws and when the burglar returned to pick up the new replacements, he actually dropped his national insurance card while climbing out. So at least some of the bad guys carry identification already!

Another disadvantage would be the cost. That would have to be weighed against the benefit in the reduction of crime, the reduction of identification time and the reduction of fraud in such things as social security and credit cards. There is also the suspicion that the data on the card could be misused by the authorities, and the initiators of the scheme would have to convince the public that technology could adequately shield that information.

There will come a time when the criminal fraternity would learn how to compromise the system. but it is estimated that that would take at least 10 years, and by then it is to be hoped that technology would once again have got ahead of the game.

There is concern that the police would abuse their powers to order the presentation of cards, particularly among minority ethnic youth. But everybody already has a social security number, a driving licence number and a medical card number and while the youth may object, it is highly probable that the adult ethnic people and the ethnic girls would be only too pleased if it meant a little more safety on the streets.

Any form of personal restriction always seems to be opposed by the civil liberties' lobby. But people are now so scared and concerned for their safety, and so exasperated with crime, that I believe that some civil liberties have to be foregone for the sake of the civil liberties of the potential victim. After all, we now carry cards in the form of driving licences, credit cards and even ID cards, as has been mentioned, so why not a non-driving licence as in the United States?

I believe that the public will accept almost any measure at the moment if they feel it will contribute to reducing crime. But even so, it will still be necessary to explain the system and its benefits, with a lot of public relations, for the scheme to be readily accepted. I believe that that is most important or the subject could turn into an unnecessary political battle.

It is interesting to look at other countries. Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Greece and Italy all have compulsory cards while France and Denmark have voluntary ones. The Netherlands are introducing one in 1994, leaving only the United Kingdom and Eire without. I favour a compulsory system and I hope that it will be introduced in exactly the same way as licences. If compulsory cards can work in seven major countries in Europe, it cannot be beyond all possibility for it to work in England.

I hope that the Government will give serious thought to the introduction of ID cards. They must know as well as anyone else that the whole population is thoroughly sick of the crime wave and are far from convinced that the Government are prepared to take firm action to get tough on crime. That is the one positive step that could and should be taken to prove their intent.

7.39 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, in this small debate your Lordships have been unanimous in your support of identity cards. Indeed, your Lordships have been virtually unanimous in support of compulsory identity cards. It hardly qualifies as a debate unless somebody disagrees to some extent so I shall attempt to do that although I, personally, find many of the arguments that have been put forward quite attractive.

My difficulties with the proposition are both technical and —much more importantly—are concerned with the civil liberties aspect of identity cards. Perhaps I should say that I have no objection whatsoever to carrying identity cards. Indeed, when I look in my wallet, I find that I am carrying a large number of them: a card key with a magnetic strip which enables me to get into my office; a Senior Railcard; a photo-card for London Transport; a quite unnecessary and pointless patient registration card from Boots the Chemists which I was given for prescriptions; and a driving licence which also contains an organ donor undertaking. All those are in addition to my credit cards. Therefore, I have no personal objection to such cards.

However, when I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Sharpies, and others, talk about Smart cards, I start to worry. There is already information which I do not understand on some of my cards—and I include information in my passport. I do not know what it contains. I do not like having things which I might be required to produce when I do not know what information is contained on them. I have heard suggestions that such cards could include information about my driving offences—if I had any. I really do start to get worried about the idea of carrying cards that contain information when I do not know what that information comprises.

The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said that she would not mind such cards carrying fingerprints. They will carry one's DNA profile next. There are all sorts of ways in which that could be extended. As we have been told that a Smart card can contain 3 million items of information, it all becomes worrying. Having worked professionally on evaluating the development of Smart cards, I should tell the House that such cards do not work as well as people think. They are, indeed, tamper-proof, but they are not destruction-proof. The Smart cards which I have been evaluating for young people getting training credits from the Department of Employment have been fed into cash machines because people do not understand that such cards should not be fed into cash machines—although the cash machines swallow them. It all becomes worrying if there is then a presumption that something is wrong if one fails to produce a Smart card.

Turning now to the civil liberties aspect of this subject, the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said that anyone going about his or her legitimate business has nothing to fear. Of course, no Member of this House has anything to fear. However, my noble friend Lord Desai knows very well and has made it clear that in many parts of London young people (and black young people in particular) have a great deal to fear from stop and search. As I said in the House only this week, all the people whom I saw being stopped in the green channel going through Customs at Heathrow were black or brown. It is not statistically probable that that should happen without there being racial prejudice.

The fact is that even if carrying the card were voluntary, and even if it were perfectly true that all people in this country going about their legitimate business need have no fear of such cards, that leaves a very large number of people who, while not doing anything wrong, simply resist the idea of being identified and of having identification which contains things that they do not know about.

I have listened carefully to the arguments and, in efficiency terms, some are most attractive, but this country, after all, has quite strict controls at its frontiers. It is our intention to continue that, and in that regard we are different from other countries in the European Community. For reasons fundamentally of civil liberties and only secondly for technical reasons, I have grave doubts about the proposal.

7.44 p.m.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Sharpies for the opportunity to debate this subject. We have had an interesting debate, with seven of your Lordships in favour of identity cards and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, rightly putting a different view. I shall not follow him in pulling out all the cards that are in my wallet. If I did so, I might surprise myself, let alone your Lordships.

The Government's position was recently made clear by my noble friend Lord Ferrers in reply to an earlier question on the introduction of identity cards from my noble friend when he noted that this matter is kept under review. This is an entirely practical approach, which is based on detailed and continuing consideration of the alleged benefits of either a voluntary or a compulsory card and weighing any potential advantages against the disadvantages and costs.

Let us look first at the benefits which might accrue from the introduction of an identity card. In recent years it has been suggested that it would reduce the incidence of crime, including terrorism; cheque and credit card fraud; and tax and social security fraud. Certainly, the claimed effect on crime was the justification for retaining the wartime system of identity cards until 1952, but it was then abolished after public concern at the way in which the police exercised their powers to demand and check the cards.

If we consider the issue of voluntary identity cards, it is riot clear exactly how we could in practice achieve a reduction in crime or an increase in detection rates. It seems unlikely that those intending to commit criminal offences would choose to equip themselves with a genuine identity card, and difficulty in identifying those arrested is not in any case the major factor in the detection of crime. The real difficulty lies in actually catching the person who has committed the crime.

As far as cheque and credit card fraud is concerned, the most effective answer is to improve the security of the documents themselves rather than to introduce another one. Furthermore, we understand that retailers do not generally support the idea of requiring cardholders to present separate evidence of identity since this would introduce an extra process and therefore greater complexity and delay at the point of sale. As for tax and social security fraud, which the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, mentioned, I understand that more problems arise from false statements about circumstances than from assumed false identities. That is the voluntary card.

A compulsory card on the other hand would, of course, require some statutory means of enforcement. Thus, the police would require powers to stop citizens and demand that an identity card be produced on the spot or within a certain space of time. And, of course, it is not possible to distinguish at a glance between citizens who would be required to carry a card from visitors who would not. There would also have to be some sanction against those who, being required to produce an identity card. failed to do so—in effect, creating a new offence and a new group of potential offenders.

Moving on from the mechanisms that a compulsory system would call into being—and it should not be thought for a minute that these would be cheap to institute, a point which I shall return to later—we have to ask what advantages it could offer. In the fight against crime, the answer is in part as I have indicated for the voluntary system. Identification is not the major problem in the detection of serious crime.

It is also suggested that identity cards would help to reduce under-age drinking, an objective of the proof-of-age card which the Portman Group already issues free of charge. It is also suggested that identity cards would bring us into line with our European neighbours. In fact, in six countries they are compulsory; in others they are voluntary; and in Denmark and the Republic of Ireland, as here, identity cards do not at present exist. Compulsory identity cards exist in Belgium, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain. In France and Italy, identity cards, though not compulsory, are widely used. The Dutch Government recently tabled proposals to introduce an identity card in the Netherlands. There is no proposal to introduce a uniform identity card throughout the EC. Indeed, any harmonised system would require unanimity on the part of all member states.

Neither am I sure that identity cards would assist in countering the terrorist threat. Criminals would be likely to try to circumvent the system by the use of fraudulently acquired cards, and in any case such a system would not impede the activities of individuals unknown to the security forces.

Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989, the police have powers to examine and establish the identity and nationality of travellers at ports. The views of the police are, of course, particularly relevant to this question. In 1989, the Association of Chief Police Officers told us that there would in fact be no clear advantage to the police in the issue of identity cards. I understand that it has now reviewed its position and is in favour of voluntary cards. It acknowledges that voluntary cards would not be as effective as compulsory cards but recognises the difficulties of compulsion which I have already mentioned.

Another argument in support of identity cards put by my noble friend Lord Gisborough is that they would in some way assist in immigration control. Our island geography, with limited points of entry, makes it the most practicable and effective system to maintain a frontier-based system of control. Non-EC nationals entering the United Kingdom are required to hold a valid passport, and EC nationals are required to have a passport or national identity card. An identity card scheme is therefore unnecessary for establishing the identity of foreign nationals. We have no intention of abandoning immigration controls on non-EC nationals at our frontiers.

In considering any proposal for an identity card scheme, we must therefore bear in mind the following points: the public's view of a requirement to possess and carry a card; that the police are in favour of a scheme but enforcing it would impose an additional burden on them; and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that we should have to guard against a false sense of security in both individuals and in society at large by fostering a mistaken belief that production of a card implied an absence of criminality. That is one of the points that led the police to the conclusion that a voluntary card presents fewer problems, particularly with regard to community relations.

Another important point to bear in mind is the cost of producing a card which could not be forged. That would be substantial. It would presumably have to be borne by the Exchequer if the scheme were compulsory and by the individual if it were voluntary.

It was estimated in 1989 that the total cost of issuing identity cards to all British citizens aged 12 and over would be about £350 million. That figure was based upon the then unit cost of a passport. An up-to-date estimate would have to take account of inflation since then; it would also be affected by the amount of information to be stored on the card. Initial capital costs would be extra, and the annual running costs would depend upon the number of new cards issued each year, the frequency of renewal and whether changes of address had to be notified. A running cost of £50 million to £100 million a year was estimated in 1989.

I began this speech by explaining that this subject is kept under review by the Government, and I have set before your Lordships some of the arguments that we must weigh in our deliberations. We are always ready to heed practical arguments on any aspect of the issue, and the points which your Lordships have raised will, of course, be examined closely.

Viscount Long

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.10 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.54 to 8.10 p.m.]