Westminster Hall Sitting of 5 November 2003

Preamble
[MR. JOHN MCWILLIAM in the Chair]

Forensic Science Service
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
9.30 am
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am grateful to have secured this debate, because the subject is of special importance today, and I thank the Minister for being here to respond. I know that he is used to these early starts, but I am none the less pleased that he has taken the trouble to turn up. I am also pleased that we have an hour and a half to debate the subject; it means that all Members will be able to have their say, and that we can do justice to the subject.
On 17 July, the Home Secretary announced that he wished the Forensic Science Service to change its status from an executive agency to a public-private partnership. Put simply, that would mark the privatisation of the service. As the forensic science laboratory at the Washington hall site in Chorley employs 240 people, I have a direct interest in the matter. However, I also share the general concern about how privatisation would affect a highly skilled work force that serves five police constabularies with a dedication and commitment to the public sector ethos that is second to none.
Many well-known cases have been dealt with at the Chorley site, and it has had great success over the years in helping to put criminals behind bars. It has always been at the leading edge in solving crime, and some of the nastiest and most horrendous murders have been solved through the work of that laboratory. It is important to stress that while science has progressed and new DNA techniques are available, the Forensic Science Service throughout the country has always been at the forefront. We should remember that many of the cases and crimes that took place long ago are still on the shelf, and could be solved as science moves on. It is important that we have an in-house service to help us solve them.
David Taylor: As my hon. Friend says, the present service is in-house. Does he believe, as I do, that selling the Forensic Science Service is likely to raise prices in the medium and long term, that it will discourage police authorities from using its facilities, and that the introduction of competition will introduce yet more bureaucracy into a service that is already over-burdened with it?
Mr. Hoyle: I could not agree more; my hon. Friend is spot on. I shall stress those points later in my speech.
Having met the staff at the Chorley laboratory, I know their strength of feeling and their opposition to the Government's plans. In fact, 140 employees took time out of their busy schedules to attend a meeting during the lunch hour to air their strongly held views. The meeting had to be held in two phases because the room was not big enough, such was the strength of feeling.
260WH
Before I go into detail about the opposition of staff, trade unions, MPs and members of the public, I shall deal with the timing of the announcement. I have a science laboratory in my constituency, but although I was informed that an announcement was to be made, I learned the news from a local radio station. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 29 July expressing concern, but no apology was made in the Minister's reply on 28 August, and none has been made since. That is not acceptable, and I believe that my colleagues will think the same.
The Home Secretary made his announcement on 17 July, which was, coincidentally, the day that Parliament went into recess, leaving a void before the subject could be properly debated in the House. Other MPs with laboratories in their constituencies were treated the same, with no letter or telephone call from the Home Office. Will the Minister comment on how he feels constituency MPs have been dealt with, and how he will deal with future issues affecting constituency MPs? It is important that Ministers take the trouble to communicate. The Minister involved was not the Minister who is present today, but I hope that he will take that point on board. In cases that directly affect constituency interests, we should be told what is about to happen.
I have a number of concerns and questions about the privatisation of the Forensic Science Service. Following the independent review conducted by Robert McFarland, it was decided that the FSS should change its status from a trading fund to a public-private partnership. The reason given is that for the FSS to remain competitive, radical change is needed to allow it to make the best use of rapidly advancing science and technology to reduce crime and deliver safer communities. We are told that in the face of competition from the private sector, the FSS faces substantial risks if it remains a trading fund, with a sustained and accelerated loss of market share. That is questionable, and I ask the Minister where the evidence for that idea is.
Last year the FSS had a turnover of £140 million and returned a profit of more than £10 million. With 2,603 employees, it is regarded across the globe as a world leader and is at the cutting edge of technology and of solving crime. From that £10 million profit, £5 million was invested in new computers and £5 million went into the Treasury coffers. It is important to stress that. The money is circulated: the Treasury put money into the police force, which puts it into the FSS, and any profits return to the Treasury. The money is circulated, rather than greedy shareholders taking it out of the system.
Diana Organ: What extra profit do the Government expect the Forensic Science Service to make, other than the £10 million that it made last year, which, as my hon. Friend said, was reinvested in the service with a little take from the Treasury? Do they hope that the service will make more profit in future?
Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend is right; the profit made goes back to the Treasury and the taxpayer reaps the benefit. The proposed change would involve the establishment of a private company, with shareholders who will want a return on their investment.
Jon Trickett: Is my hon. Friend aware that the National Audit Office recently produced a report on the Forensic Science Service? That report went to the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member. The NAO is not known for producing glowing reports on public expenditure, and as a member of the PAC, I often see its withering criticisms of particular organisations. However, the NAO report did not find anything uncommercial about the way in which the service is operated, but found it to be a model of a competitive and efficient public sector service. Would my hon. Friend pass on my congratulations, along with his, to the staff involved?
Mr. Hoyle: I absolutely agree. Who better than a member of the PAC to point out that the proposal is not the best way forward or the right model to use? That model is discredited, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend has brought that fact out today. We are discussing not only jobs, but the wasting of taxpayers' money.
Robert McFarland's report on the FSS states:
"The FSS can take particular credit for:
Its response to the significant increases in demand for forensic services over the last decade;
The development of the forensic applications of DNA, and the setting up and managing, with the Association of Chief Police Officers…of the NDNAD"—
that is, the national DNA database—
"and
Pioneering new ways of working with and in support of the police."
All that is being put at risk.
The FSS is doing a pretty good job on what matters, which is solving crime and putting criminals behind bars, so my second question is: how will competition improve the service provided to the police? Robert McFarland states that
"the emergence of a fully open and competitive market has been constrained by what the private sector saw as the entrenched monopoly of the FSS."
If we sell the service to one company, the danger is that that company then becomes a monopoly. Or are we going to split each regional centre into different companies with different shareholders? Will they share information? Why should they? Why should they allow their financial success to be given over to a competitor? However, if information is not shared, the only winner will be the criminal. This is a criminal's charter; we will not be able to solve crime, because each company will be driven by the need to raise money for shareholders. Many questions need to be answered.
It is interesting that reviews of the proposals are being conducted. I am pleased that the Public Accounts Committee is to report, and I am sure that the Minister knows that the Science and Technology Committee will produce a report in the New Year. It has many worries, which include the key question of who will train future scientists. We currently have success because in-house facilities allow scientists to develop specialist knowledge. For certain crimes, only a few scientists have the appropriate knowledge. Will any one company train those people? No one can tell me that each company will cover all the areas—arson and gun crime, for example. Specialist scientists currently deal with each niche area,
262WH
but certain crimes may be committed only rarely, so will each company hold on full pay a scientist to specialise in them? I doubt that. What will happen if there is an increase in demand? How many companies will want to enter the market? There is a lot for the Minister to think about.
Considering the way in which we are moving, we must address the big issue. Why do we believe that competition is necessary, especially when it comes to putting criminals behind bars? Competition is not needed for that—the Government are simply being driven by their belief that what they are doing is right.
How will competition operate? Will the seven laboratories throughout the UK compete with each other, or will the service belong to one company? If so, competition will have to take place on the basis of cost, but how can costs be cut in such important and delicate work, which needs time to ensure that the answers are right? We are talking about people's liberty, and about putting people behind bars.
Jon Trickett: My hon. Friend is talking about the cost to the public purse. Does he know that the FSS is proposing to make a significant number of people redundant? That redundancy programme is really about preparing for privatisation. It will cost at least £6 million, and that cost will fall on the taxpayer rather than the private firm, when it is finally privatised. Is my hon. Friend surprised by those costs? Money is being taken from the work of detecting criminals to pay for making people redundant.
Mr. Hoyle: I am not surprised, and I do not think anyone will be shocked, by that. The shock is that we are willing to make people redundant in the hope that we can attract someone to take on the service and then deliver a profit for shareholders. That is a great worry. Why should we use the taxpayers' money to stop the detection of crime?
The only person to gain from such measures would be the criminal, who may go undetected, as work may not be conducted properly, or at all, because of an unwillingness to undertake unprofitable work. That is clearly intolerable and cannot be allowed. The debate also has an ethical aspect. Which private entities will be allowed a share in the FSS? Perhaps drug companies or insurance companies will be allowed a share. Could there be a conflict of interest in the work conducted?
As a Government, we pride ourselves on trying to modernise and improve services, and on looking for new ways to improve them. That is an admirable aim and a great objective, of which new Labour can be proud. However, the present proposal is nothing new. Similar proposals were put before Conservative Ministers in the 1980s, and were rejected. The dogma driving privatisation is now 25 years old. We are stuck with old ideas and old methods. Nothing new is coming out. We must have moribund ideas if we have to go back to the failures of the 1980s. We should learn the lesson of

263WH
botched privatisations—of which I am constantly reminded every time I travel by train from the north-west.
Diana Organ: Does my hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of the FSS could be a privatisation too far for this Government, as rail privatisation was for the Conservative Government?
Mr. Hoyle: Absolutely. I cannot disagree.
The trade unions representing forensic scientists, Prospect and the Public and Commercial Services Union, have made their opposition known. In addition, the Police Federation also opposes the Government's plans, and issued a statement saying:
"We are fundamentally opposed to profit being made from policing and are concerned that as provider competition is introduced, bureaucracy will increase in a police service already overburdened with it."
David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that the logic behind such privatisation could be extended to privatising scene-of-crime investigations, and even the CID itself at some future date? The CID could become the Chorley Investigations Department of Pinkerton's, or something similar.
Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the danger is that we do not know how far the move could be taken. That is the big question. The measures are the thin end of the wedge. We have heard, "Don't worry, it will only go so far," before, but things soon spread. Who knows—will the proud Lancashire constabulary be walking around with "Group 4" on their sleeves? At least we do know that the criminals might get away. The danger is that there will be no such thing as a sell-off too far. If we allow FSS to go, everything else may follow. I think that that is everyone's worry, and that is why I am pleased to see so many hon. Members here.
I think that when we talk about such matters, we should listen to the trade unions. I am not talking about the old 1970s dogma, but about modern trade unions with modern practices, that wish to represent their members in the best possible way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Like Prospect?"] Yes, unions such as Prospect and PCS.
As I said, a statement was issued that stated that the police were fundamentally concerned, and that they were bothered about being over-burdened, and about where the service will be. I would be grateful for the Minister's views on the comments made by the Police Federation, and it is important that he responds to that point.
I put my concerns about quality of service, the provision of a 24/7 capability, high standards and research and development to the Government, and received a ministerial reply in a letter dated 16 September, saying that those matters would be considered as the restructuring process took place.
It is a long time since September. I would have thought that those points would have been considered by now, and we would have the information. I am not saying that the Minister should have the information today, but I think that he ought to let MPs and colleagues with an interest in the FSS labs know the
264WH
answers. We received a delaying letter—I can understand that, but enough time has now been spent waiting. We ought to receive another letter soon, unless the Minister has the information.
I would like to know whether there is any further update on research and development work. Part of the argument is that the labs need new investment, but why not take that out of the profits being made, rather than using money from the private sector? The taxpayers' money is there. We might as well use that as give it to shareholders, who will make an even bigger profit. We all want the FSS to remain a world leader; we cannot allow its position to be jeopardised.
The 24-hour, seven-day-a-week cover is an essential part of the service, although no doubt unprofitable, because of the labour-intensive nature of the work. Providing a 24/7 service loses money, so what guarantees can be provided that the service will not be reduced and adversely affected by privatisation,? Unfortunately, criminals work 24 hours, seven days a week, and we need a service to deal with that. That is where the cost cutting could take place, which is a worry. I do not think that anyone wants that. When a crime needs to be solved, we do not want someone to say, "By the way, can you wait until Monday? We don't work Sundays any more." We must stress the importance of 24/7 cover and the fact that keeping it in-house ensures that the service will always be on hand.
The Minister has made it clear that the DNA database will remain in the public sector. Again, I seek assurances that the data will remain strictly confidential and will not be threatened in any way by the changing status of the FSS if the proposal goes ahead.
I oppose the Government's plans, as do the staff and unions who work in and with the FSS. Until the concerns that we have outlined have been answered, I shall remain opposed to the plans and unconvinced that we shall see a change for the better, rather than another botched privatisation. I am worried about that, and I stress the need to recognise the credentials of the people who work in the service and their dedication to it, which others are willing to put at risk.
9.51 am
Colin Burgon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing the debate. We have worked together on this issue for a couple of months, and in some respects I hope that we soon become redundant in that capacity. Indeed, following the extremely powerful case that he has advanced today, I have a feeling that we may be able to pack our tents and leave the battlefield fairly soon, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley said about his visit to the laboratory in Chorley, because I made a visit to Wetherby, which I shall deal with as I develop my argument.
When the Government, extremely foolishly, introduced proposals to privatise the Forensic Science Service, they unwittingly helped me to expand my knowledge base—I know that they are a lifelong learning Government. They helped me to expand my knowledge of a service that many millions of us take for granted. One of the seven labs that my hon. Friend

265WH
mentioned is based in my constituency, at Wetherby. I must admit that I had only a general knowledge of the work that it carried out, so I determined to learn more about the service and the people who work in it, and I have been tremendously impressed by their attitude and professionalism.
That process of finding out and talking to people has confirmed in my mind that the Government's proposals are ill thought-out, and will be very damaging if allowed to proceed. The job of MPs is to examine proposals rigorously, even if they are introduced in a recess and seem to have been smuggled out to avoid conflict—and if proposals are flawed, dangerous and mistaken, MPs must say so openly.
When we consider the scope and scale of the work carried out by the Forensic Science Service, we soon realise that it is a tremendously important organisation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley strongly argued. It is central to the investigation of crime and the prosecution of offenders, and it contributes to deterrence and to the prevention and reduction of crime. The facts and figures for the service are truly impressive. My hon. Friend gave a few, and I shall back him up. The service employs more than 2,000 people, of whom more than 50 per cent. are trained scientists, and many are world authorities in their field. It deals with more than 100,000 criminal cases a year, and examines more than half a million items per year, principally for the 43 police forces in England and Wales. It also deals with the Crown Prosecution Service and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, and provides services to businesses both in the UK and abroad. It invests about £3 million each year in the vital area of scientific research.
David Taylor: My hon. Friend mentions the international role of the FSS. Is he aware that there is no nation on the planet whose FSS or equivalent is in the private sector? Does that surprise him?
Colin Burgon: I would have been surprised before I examined the issue, but now I am not. My hon. Friend is correct. Perhaps new Labour is trying to break into a new area, and say, "We're the first Government to deliver"—
David Taylor: Pioneers get all the arrows.
Colin Burgon: Indeed—but I hope that we can turn that particular drive today.
The FSS pioneered the use of DNA, and set up the world's first national criminal intelligence DNA database. Those facts are so impressive that in 1999 they moved a Labour Home Office Minister to say:
"We have a forensic service which we are proud of and it is widely regarded as a market leader in the way it meets ever demanding challenges. Its contribution is key to the delivery of justice."
I hope that the present Minister will associate himself with those remarks and acknowledge the high standing and effectiveness of the FSS, for I know him to be an open and fair-minded person. That would strengthen our argument.
Diana Organ: Is my hon. Friend aware that the forensic science service of our closest neighbour, the
266WH
French, is nowhere near as developed as ours in terms of the work that can be done on DNA? I was involved with the case of a family whose daughter, Joanna Parrish, was murdered in France, and the British Forensic Science Service was asked to help in doing the DNA work required to find the murderer. That shows what a world leader our forensic service is.
Colin Burgon: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is right. I believe—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the weapon used in the recent assassination of a leading Swedish politician was also sent to Britain for analysis.
I hope that the Minister will recognise the strength of the case for keeping the FSS within the public sector, and find the points I now intend to put forward unanswerable, even with his great intellect. My opposition to the public-private partnership option also uses the acronym PPP, because I have practical, political and philosophical objections to the direction in which we are going.
On a practical level, we are told that the service needs investment. In the meetings that I attended the figures given, even by Ministers, were a bit vague. However, I have seen the figure of £30 million mentioned, which would principally be used to upgrade the seven laboratories. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley pointed out, £30 million does not seem a massive sum, when set in the context of the huge Home Office budget. Will the Minister comment on that?
Furthermore, as a Minister from the Home Office admitted to me in a written answer, the service generated some £10 million in profits returned to the Government last year. Moreover, I am informed that £10 million was invested in upgrading its computer programmes. In the light of those figures, the case for privatisation makes no financial sense. I am particularly concerned, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), about "fattening up" the service for privatisation, by using public money for a series of redundancy payments.
I believe that privatisation will destroy the morale and cohesion of those who work for the FSS. We should never forget that its highly trained and committed staff are its most valuable and prized asset. The potential loss of terms and conditions built up over the years cannot help but undermine morale. I have spoken to people at the FSS who share that view, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley has, too. I ask the Minister to comment on pension rights, which are tremendously complex and can be skated over too easily—although I am sure that he will not do that. I also ask him to comment on the danger of a two-tier work force if privatisation goes ahead.
In West Yorkshire, a vigorous debate is being conducted in the columns of the Yorkshire Evening Post on funding for our police service. Again, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley that charges to the police for forensic science services will automatically increase with privatisation as companies seek to secure a commercial rate of return on investment for shareholders. That follows as naturally as night follows day. The public will end up paying for privatisation,

267WH
either because the police service will aim to pass on increased charges through council tax, or because it will be minded to refer less work in an attempt to keep down rising costs, which in turn means that fewer criminals will be caught—a virtuous circle, some might argue.
It is nonsense to argue that the FSS is under pressure from vigorously growing private sector competitors and should therefore be privatised. Even if we entertain this dream world of marketisation and competition, the arguments in favour of privatisation do not stack up. Given its current market share of 90 per cent. plus, the FSS will dominate the sector if it is privatised, and it could act as a virtual monopoly. We must admit that there is no such thing as perfect market conditions and, to be frank, I do not think that a Labour Government should expend its energies chasing after the mirage of a perfect market economy.
I fear that the FSS will be hobbled in any privatisation process. The so-called small dynamic providers will be allowed to cherry-pick, and the FSS will be left with the less profitable areas. In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley said, it will be required to provide a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week on-call system, with which the other competitors will not be saddled.
Given the central importance of the FSS to the Government's strategy on crime and the workings of the criminal justice system, the Government will have to address any financial problems faced. In short, although the service will be privatised, public money will be used to construct a safety net, thus ensuring ultimate protection for the private sector, as we have seen with the railways and air traffic control.
Ministers will have to answer on a subject over which they have little control—a situation that we are seeing more and more. We shall get all the political downside, without the political control. I hope that the Minister will agree that the public have a great deal of trust and confidence in the FSS, which privatisation will undermine. The FSS has grown organically alongside our police forces, and can quickly mirror and adapt to changing patterns of public practice. Privatisation will break the vast number of organisational and personal links that help the two services to work together efficiently, and the public will inevitably suffer.
I oppose privatisation also because boundaries must be drawn between the public and the private sector. This proposed privatisation illustrates the lack of confidence in the public sector ethos shown by some elements in the Government and the people who advise them. I have no problem with the notion that the private sector can deliver many things, from coffee to cars, perfectly acceptably, but I cannot accept the idea, which some of our colleagues accept too readily, that the private sector is inherently superior in every sphere of human activity.
We must remember that people are not defined solely as consumers; they are also citizens, which we as Labour politicians will ignore at our peril. I have talked to staff at the Wetherby laboratory, and am convinced that most of them value the fact that they work within the public sector, are supporters of the public sector ethos and are committed to it. They are not convinced that privatising their work will make them more efficient and
268WH
deliver better outcomes—a view that I share. They are working in a service that is already successful, by any standard that one could wish to apply.
Dr. John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman has outlined his philosophical objections to privatisation. Does he agree that this is an attempt to privatise a service that the Government cannot allow to fail in any circumstances? That is always a mistake, in principle.
Colin Burgon: That is why I made the point about the safety net. As with the railways and air traffic control, the so-called risk takers in the private sector have a safety net under them. The perfect market conditions in which such forces are supposed to flourish will never be created.
Finally, I urge the Minister to give this matter more thought and to look for a solution that involves working with a committed staff through their two trade unions to maintain the Forensic Science Service as a leader in its field, and to ensure that it is constantly open to innovation, responsive to its customers, and a model of an effective public sector organisation.
I hope and pray that the Minister gives a positive response. I do not want to get involved in a fight over this, and I know that several other Back Benchers feel the same. However, if we have to fight, we will be thoroughly committed to carrying the fight through.
10.6 am
Mr. David Borrow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing the debate. A considerable number of my constituents are employed at the laboratory in Chorley, which my hon. Friend has discussed at some length. Many of them have contacted me in the last few weeks, both in writing and in person. Before that, I did not know much about the Forensic Science Service, except what I had seen on television about the forensic science course at the university of Central Lancashire, which had been the subject of a series of television programmes over the past six to 12 months.
When my constituents contacted me, I was struck by the extent to which they were committed to public service. We must recognise that people sometimes choose to go into the public service rather than join a private sector employer. Often, they accept that the pay and conditions may not be as good, and the financial rewards may not be as beneficial, as they would be in the private sector, but working in the public service gives them other benefits, such as job satisfaction and a sense of working for the wider community.
I do not necessarily oppose the idea of private sector involvement in public services. Some 20 years ago, the Labour party was, or was perceived to be, ideologically opposed to the private sector. For my party, the public sector was good and the private sector was bad, whereas the Thatcher Government believed that the private sector was good and the public sector was bad. Then, in the late 1980s, I remember attending meetings and listening to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, as he now is, who advocated involving the private sector with the public sector to improve services.

269WH
I start from the position of not being ideologically opposed to that, but I question whether I should ask those of my constituents who have committed themselves to public service within the public sector to work for a private or public-private organisation. For that to have to happen, there must be an overwhelming need. The question is whether what is suggested will work and whether the need is important enough to justify the change, which will disrupt the lives of people who have given many years of service in the public sector. Should we shift them against their will into the private sector, with all the stresses and strains that that will bring? The case for that has not yet been made.
In a letter to me, the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety stated:
"We are committed to ensuring FSS continues to be able to remain a world class leader in the development and delivery of forensic science."
There is nothing in that sentence to indicate that the organisation is failing, or that it is not delivering a first-class service. Yesterday I received a letter from a constituent, who said:
"The FSS has assisted internationally in setting up forensic laboratories in Lithuania, DNA databases in Poland, Romania, Kuwait and New Zealand, and winning against European competition a contract to work with Czech police. It led the investigation into Bosnian war graves. This international reputation could be put at risk, if privatisation fails."
We are considering an organisation that, by any measure, is successful; it has a wonderful international reputation. Its trading company makes a profit, of which part is invested and part goes back to the taxpayer.
I have in my office a sack of letters to constituents who have written to me on the issue; they will go out after the debate, and I shall include a copy of the Hansard report of it. I hope that by then a proper case will have been made as to why the change is necessary. The correspondence that I have received so far does not make the case, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will provide persuasive arguments as to why the policy of the Home Office is correct.
I am prepared to disagree with constituents if I believe that the Government's policy is correct, and will argue for it. However, in this case I have been given no answer on any point that I have raised that I can take back to my constituents. I am not ideologically opposed to the involvement of the private sector in delivering a public service, but no case has been made. It is crucial, before we put at risk the good will—
Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend, with his background of working in the public sector, will be aware that in certain cases, that sector is needed. Does he agree that the short-term gain that might come from this proposal will be the Government's long-term loss?
Mr. Borrow: The proposed public-private partnership may be driven by short-term financial difficulties, or requirements placed on the Home Office in order to get investment into the service; I can understand why there might be pressure from the Treasury on the Home Office to do that. However, in five years' time when major
270WH
things have gone wrong with the FSS and there have been failures in investigations, we do not want to find ourselves, after the event, holding a Select Committee inquiry into the failure of a privatised FSS. No Government would want to risk putting themselves in that situation. The danger is that if this is botched, or driven through simply to meet short-term financial needs, we shall have made a bad decision.
If there is a strong long-term case for a change in the structure and organisation of the FSS, we can debate it and see whether there is merit in it. So far, the Government has made no such argument. There needs to be an overwhelming case for change before we disturb an organisation that has given excellent service, has an international reputation and employs hundreds of dedicated professionals committed to working in a public service, and before we put at risk any of their livelihoods and pensions, as the change could do. I look forward with great interest to the Minister's comments, and I hope that he will give all of us some satisfaction, and something that I can take back to my constituents.
10.13 am
Jon Trickett: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not having given much notice of my wish to speak. Like other hon. Members, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) for having called for today's debate. It is important for a number of reasons.
Before I speak about the FSS, I shall take hon. Members back to the summer months, before the Conservatives' little local difficulties with their leadership, which I predict will continue once they have the leader who looks likely to be selected, or elected—[HON. MEMBERS: "Crowned."]—or crowned. At that time there was some debate about the state of the Labour party, and I predict that that debate will reemerge. Another point that was made—
Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jon Trickett: Let me just finish what I was saying. I apologise for being provocative about a matter that is not on the agenda, but I wanted to make the point.
The debate at that time, which I predict will reemerge, was on the hypothesis—I put it no stronger than that—that a gap was opening up between the Government and the party and its supporters, which began to be articulated around the managerialism of Ministers, rather than the values that our Government are meant to embrace. With the FSS we are faced with a managerialist decision, which is detached from the values that the Government are meant to espouse. However, before I address that matter I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Brazier: To bring us back to the subject of the debate, may I point out that the person to whom the hon. Gentleman referred as our new leader considered a proposal very similar to this one when he was Home Secretary—and firmly rejected it?
Jon Trickett: I am sure he did, but as that person is committed to tax cuts, it will be interesting to see which cuts in the police service and the criminal justice service generally he intends to implement instead.

271WH
I want to address values and managerialism, because when the decisions that are taken are detached from the ethos that we espouse and seek to represent, they can be understood only in managerial terms. I am afraid that the decision that we are discussing is a managerial decision, but it is also flawed on managerial grounds. I shall explain why in a moment.
As for the values that determine the way in which the Government move forward, there is nothing wrong with being pragmatic within an overarching set of values, but nor should we run away from the word "ideology", because that was what motivated many of us to become politicians—a belief in a particular kind of nation, which was not the kind of nation that we inhabited at the time. Personally, I do not think that there is anything wrong with ideology, but one of the values that I would have thought we would want to espouse is modernity, and modern public services, which must be well invested in and efficient. Nobody has ever said that the FSS is inefficient or lacking in modernity.
Beyond the value of modernity, however, are the values of public service. Hon. Members have referred to the strong public service ethos that runs through all the Labour party's thinking. It is true that none of us nowadays believes that the whole of society should be state owned, which would be a preposterous thing for us to propose in a modern United Kingdom. However, it is clear that some services—the criminal justice system is such a service par excellence—should be in a not-for-profit environment. A body concerned with the identification and capture of criminals, and their imprisonment and punishment, should be dedicated to the public service, and retain a strong public service ethos.
That ethos is strongly felt by the people who work in the forensic science laboratory. They spend their lives attempting to produce evidence that identifies criminals and eventually results in their imprisonment. I defy the Minister, intelligent as he is, to explain where in our core values as a Government or as a movement the decision we are discussing is located. As I have said, it is a managerial decision, and in managerial terms it is flawed. The key issue is that nowhere else in the world is the forensic science service privatised and, more importantly, separated from the police function in such a radical way. That information comes from paragraph 1.7 of the National Audit Office report, to which I referred earlier, which clearly indicates that no other country separates forensic science to the same degree, making it a distinct agency, never mind privatises it.
When I asked the leading executives in the FSS whether any comparable country had suggested privatising its forensic science service, Dr. Werrett told me that not even the Bush Administration were prepared to go that far. Indeed, they were not even prepared to privatise DNA testing. Nowhere in the world has the forensic science service been separated from the criminal justice service. Even New Zealand and Australia, which have occasionally had fairly reckless right-wing Governments, have not done that.
The reasons are fairly obvious. Separating the service destroys the command structure that is needed to operate effectively to identify criminals. That is why, traditionally and universally, apart from in this country,
272WH
the two services have been integrated. The police service is in charge of the Forensic Science Service for simple, logical, management reasons.
The NAO report to which I referred contains an interesting description of an initiative—in Leeds, of all places. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) represents one of the constituencies involved. I come from Leeds originally and I lived there all my life until I became a Wakefield MP. I am still interested in Leeds. In an interesting experiment, Wetherby forensic science laboratory seconded back into the police force the scientists who assisted in BRIL—which stands for burglary reduction in Leeds—an initiative designed to defeat burglary. It resulted in a 247 per cent. increase in convictions compared with the previous period in 2000.
Why was the initiative so successful? The NAO report clearly states that it was successful because of the reintegration of the FSS with the police service. I was delighted to see so many burglars put behind bars. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and the Minister would feel the same. Indeed, everyone would. The success resulted from the reintegration of the service. Yet what does the Government propose? They propose to separate the service even further. They intend to set up a public-private partnership as a stage on the road to total privatisation. That will result in the most radical severing of the link between the police and criminal justice service, which remains in the public sector, and the Forensic Science Service, which will go into the private sector.
If I were a distinguished policeman or someone working in the courts I would have doubts about operating with the Forensic Science Service if it were a public limited company. I would worry about the security of information. It might be part of a larger group, and I would be concerned that the shareholders would have opinions about how the FSS was to be used. I might also have worries about money and profit being a motivation, as the information that the FSS would begin to accumulate would no longer be used in the interests of the public sector alone, but might be used in the interests of the shareholders. That disturbs me.
There will be a further breakdown in managerial relationships that are already strained because of the way the service has been separated into an agency. Those relationships will be severed completely when privatisation takes place. There is no case on managerial grounds or on grounds of values for what the Government propose.
David Taylor: Do my hon. Friend's concerns include the possibility that the national DNA database, which contains more than 2 million genetic profiles, might be used for purposes well beyond the detection and prosecution of crimes and criminals?
Jon Trickett: I was concerned about that, and I asked a series of questions about it. The Government may have moved slightly in their thinking on the subject, so I shall not press the point now. However, I warn them that many people, both in the House and outside, would be extremely concerned at the privatisation of the DNA database. The Government may have pulled back from that, but only after people kicked up a fuss.
I wonder whether those who advise the Minister also advised his colleagues to privatise the DNA database. He obviously accepts that it was a mistake to privatise

273WH
that part of the agency; perhaps he should think about the quality of advice that he receives from them, as they were patently wrong. No one in the world is privatising DNA databases. DNA is precious; it is internal to each human being. Our DNA is what makes our life, yet I must tell the Minister that the advisers were telling the Government to privatise it. Those same people are now saying that although that advice was wrong, Ministers should keep their feet on the accelerator. That is a fundamental mistake. One simply cannot make a managerial case for privatisation.
Other information was given to the Public Accounts Committee, and I wait with interest to see the report. However, as far as I could see, not one member of the Committee felt comfortable with what had been discovered. We were told that £6 million would be set aside as redundancy money to get rid of staff; that will be paid for by the taxpayer, presumably to thin down the organisation so that it is ready to make larger profits for the private sector.
What on earth are we doing diverting money from pursuing criminals into paying redundancy money, given that the Government accepts that the FSS will face a 50 per cent. increase in its work? Why are we making people redundant when the service is expanding?
A series of other matters also came up, but I do not have time to raise them now. However, as a Yorkshire Member I am aware of the implications for jobs in Wetherby. No case can be made for what the Government propose, on ideological grounds, on value grounds or on managerial grounds A highly placed snout in the Treasury—I emphasise that this is a very highly placed source—is saying that the Treasury is not pressing the Home Office to do it.
Once one has examined the arguments about why there are no managerial or pragmatic reasons for making the change, the assumption must be that it is ideologically driven. However, I cannot believe that the Minister who is here today could possibly be ideologically driven to privatise part of the criminal justice system. I appeal to him, as other hon. Members have done, to reflect carefully on the debate and on the possible schism that is opening up between Back Benchers—loyal comrades and hon. Friends, who want to modernise the service—and the Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The purpose of these debates is to enable the Members who raise them to get an answer from a Minister, so we had better start the winding-up speeches now.
10.28 am
Mr. David Heath: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on initiating the debate. I also congratulate all his hon. Friends, and other colleagues, on their contributions. Powerful positions have been set out, and the Minister must have realised that on this subject he has few friends on his own side, let alone on the Opposition Benches. That should give him cause for concern.
I start with the common ground: the police need the best possible forensic service if they are to do their job effectively. That is even more the case as new
274WH
technologies emerge, which give us huge additional scope for the effective detection of crime. We should remember the assertion, supported by all the evidence to hand, that the present structure of the Forensic Science Service provides a quality service. We know that because, as has been pointed out, the National Audit Office report is very clear that the present structures serve the criminal justice community, and the country in general, well. I look forward with interest to the conclusions of the Public Accounts Committee following its inquiry. I know that it has been carefully studying what is proposed and how money is spent.
The National Audit Office report concludes not only that the quality of the service is good, but that improvements are being made in productivity—the number of cases has risen by 52 per cent. since 1996–97, with 130,000 cases in 2001–02—and in timeliness of responses; attention is drawn to the fact that the backlog of DNA samples has been eliminated in recent years. It also concludes that the effectiveness of the work in securing convictions has improved.
Where criticisms are made—and they are few—they are largely about the level of effective communication between the police service and the Forensic Science Service. There is concern about the fact that despite increased take-up there are still police forces that are not well enough equipped with scene-of-crime officers to obtain the raw material to enable the Forensic Science Service to do its work. There is also concern about whether there is sufficient feedback and communication between the service and the police to enable work to be planned more effectively, to provide for transparency in individual cases and to ensure that the best possible service is provided.
The clear conclusion, which Ministers evidently share, is that our Forensic Science Service is a world leader—a professional service that provides a high quality of resource. Therefore, as others have argued, if the Government proposes change, they need to provide arguments for that change. If something is working as well as the service is working, pretty potent arguments are needed to support the sort of upheaval that is on the agenda.
What might such arguments for change be? Perhaps other models of forensic science service, having gone down the road of privatisation elsewhere in the world, are even more successful. However, we have heard that that is not so. Nowhere, even in America, Australia or Canada, or anywhere in Europe, is there anything that matches the Government's proposals.
Indeed, there are very few other services that are even close to the agency approach that we operate. I believe that Holland is just about the only major country whose service tends towards that approach. If they take the steps proposed, the Government will become a pioneer in taking us beyond what any other country has considered reasonable in providing for its criminal justice system.
A second argument for the change would be that there was clear scope for improvement in performance. However, as we have heard from the National Audit Office and others, there is a high level of performance at present, and it is improving. It is therefore hard to sustain an argument that moving the service to the private sector would necessarily improve the performance of the service as a whole.

275WH
As for the investment decisions that the service must take, there is scope within present profitability to secure the investment. It is not clear that an asset base provided by the private sector is needed to maintain the effectiveness of the service. If profitability is what this is all about—ensuring maximum profits for the service, so that part can be reinvested while, inevitably in the case of a private sector business, part must go to the shareholders and be lost to the public sector—where are the profits coming from? They can only come from the public sector—from the police authorities and the people who must pay inflated council tax bills to support the police. Where is the sense in that? What is the logic in ensuring profitability for what is essentially an entirely public sector operation?
There is an argument about the vulnerability of the service to other providers, but I cannot accept that a company that effectively has a 90 per cent. share is highly vulnerable to the small providers. Those small providers provide good alternative services, and I do not want to knock them. Some police forces use them for specialist services and they are right to do so, as there is no reason why they should not test the market like that. However, the idea that a provider with a 90 per cent. market share is vulnerable to those minnows in the market is laughable and will not, I hope, be sustained by the Minister.
David Taylor: The justification for the path on which the Government are apparently set says that the public-private partnership is the optimum way to enable the Forensic Science Service to compete effectively. With whom?
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman asks exactly the right question with whom? With the other providers? If so, I must point out that they do not want the Forensic Science Service in the private sector, because they know that the virtually monopolistic situation that would arise would not be in their interests as private companies. Also, the innovation that small-scale private sector providers bring to the margins of the Forensic Science Service would be killed, because one large monopolistic private sector company would be grabbing the whole market, which is a serious concern.
What would be the effect of that virtual monopoly? It would drive up the fees and charges to the police forces, which is not a good thing because it will result either in higher costs to the police services, and thereby to the council tax payer, or in fewer cases being given to the Forensic Science Service, which will mean reduced effectiveness of investigation and detection. An effect already being felt is instability in the existing service, with the prospect of redundancies among highly skilled individuals whom we cannot afford to lose from the public service, because they are some of the finest scientists in the country and do a good job. There is also a continuing concern about the reduction in the science base as a whole.
The dialogue between the Forensic Science Service and the police, which we should be promoting, will also be reduced. We want them to compare notes about planned workload and for there to be greater direct communication. If the service were in the private sector, and the conversation about the likely load was therefore taking place between the customer and the monopoly
276WH
supplier, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would have to look into the matter, as that will not be a private sector, free market situation. Such arrangements will act as a bar to the introduction of new technologies that the Home Secretary will undoubtedly want to enforce and police services will want to take advantage of, because there will be another line of command—that is, shareholders rather than the public interest. There are also genuine issues about security in the service.
Finally, I have some questions. First, we are still not clear about what will happen with the national firearms intelligence database. Will the Minister make it absolutely clear whether he envisages that it will be retained in the public sector? Secondly, we know about the national DNA database from a paragraph that seems to have been inserted into a letter to us all. I have a letter from the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), which says:
"the review concluded that it is in the public interest for it to continue to be managed in the public sector".
If that is the decision, how is it to be managed? Will we see an orphan agency, existing simply to run the DNA service? If so, where is the cost-effectiveness in that?
Thirdly, why have the Government not published the independent review on which the assessment is based? They have published the executive summary, but they refuse to publish the full report because they say that it is commercially sensitive. That is becoming a habit with the Government. The Home Office refused to publish the Carter review of the Criminal Records Bureau, it refused to publish the independent review of the National Asylum Support Service in July, and now it has refused to publish the report in question. I think that that is a matter for the ombudsman. The Minister ought to consider what constitutes commercial sensitivity and what constitutes the public interest when such a key decision is being taken on our behalf.
My last point is one that all hon. Members have wanted to make. The Forensic Science Service is an integral part of our criminal justice system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said, it is a service that cannot be allowed to fail. Unless the Government has overwhelming arguments for putting it into the private sector, it should stay where it is, provided that its service is of high quality and integrated, not disintegrated, within the existing system. The Government have yet to prove any case to support their proposition, and it will not receive the backing of many Members on either side of the House.
10.40 am
Mr. Julian Brazier: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing the debate. He expressed his views and his strong feelings, and raised some concerns that are shared on this side of the House. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on a thoughtful and interesting speech, which drew on his experiences on the Public Accounts Committee.
There is no greater enthusiast for privatisation than me, but the Government's approach to scientific work does not make sensible use of privatisation. This is all of

277WH
a piece: the arguments are the same as those we had about the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, on which the American Government repeatedly intervened, asking the Government not to privatise it, for all the sensible reasons that the Defence Select Committee, which I was on at the time, set out so clearly. There were similar threats to the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs laboratories that are so important for the food chain.
Some changes can appear to be small but have consequences that go far beyond what is perceived when they are made. Changes to the Forensic Science Service could be one such case. Its work is as vital as it is invisible, and I pay tribute to the service for its pivotal role in the fight against crime. The science that the men and women of the service bring to bear can make the difference again and again between conviction and acquittals, both for criminals and for innocent defendants, within the criminal justice system. Forensic science is a vital component in the armoury of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. If that does not remain the case, the nation as a whole, not just those working in the service, will be poorer.
When the Home Secretary announced the changes, he failed to provide any information about what the Government would do with the national DNA database. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has just pointed out, we need to know about that quickly. If the Government are determined to privatise the service—and with their overwhelming majority, they can—they must at least ensure that any change in the status of the Forensic Science Service provides clear safeguards for protecting confidential and sensitive data not just in the national DNA database but throughout the items that involve the interests of the police, victims and the public in general. The service must never be seen to profit from crime at the expense of the fight against crime.
The central question, which the Minister has been asked by each Member, is what is the Government's case for making the change, apart from making a very small contribution in one year—coincidentally, the year before the election—towards reducing the black hole in the public sector borrowing requirement. The FSS is a highly successful trading fund, and as others have said, it paid a dividend of £5 million to the Treasury last year, as well as making substantial internal investment.
One of the few reasons that the Government have advanced for privatisation is increased competition, but as it has 90 per cent. of the market, seven laboratories and 2,400 staff, where would the competition come from? How many new market entrants does the Government anticipate, given the dominant position of the FSS? Would new entrants mean that they would have to establish a regulator? How much would a regulator cost, and what would his terms of reference be?
If the FSS becomes a private company, what will the Government's policy be on possible failure or mismanagement? I assume that such an important service could not be allowed simply to disappear, but that could create an absurd situation in which the Government, having said that they needed the private
278WH
sector because they could not afford the necessary investment, ended up spending much more trying to rescue the service when it went bottom-up.
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) cannot be here because of another parliamentary commitment, but he is deeply concerned about his many constituents who work in the service. One such constituent says in a letter:
"As part of the criminal justice system the Forensic Science Service acts in the public interest … The cost for Forensic work could increase significantly. Police budgets would then have to be increased … or there would be a decrease in the amount of Forensic Work carried out"
and
"a significant decrease in the number of crimes detected and prosecuted".
Of course, much of the work done by the FSS is painstaking and carried out with little or no profit margin. Does the Government know to what degree, if at all, the FSS operates a system of internal cross-subsidy for labour-intensive major crime work or to maintain the 24/7 on-call system, to which two hon. Members referred? Will the Government set minimum standards of service and service provision? If there will be no minimum service requirement, presumably the unprofitable work will still need to be done by someone, so who do the Government envisage doing that?
Let me illustrate the problem. The present priorities are fixed by the needs of the criminal justice system. Murder is, of course, at the top of the system's priorities, and many murder inquiries involve complicated and exacting one-off work of a sort that will never be profitable in any organisation. What is to prevent the new owners from focusing on an area such as vehicle crime, which is also important, and offers far more scope for profitable repetitive work?
A worried worker at Huntingdon says:
"we are currently threatened with redundancy, despite the FSS having a healthy operating surplus in this financial year … management have consistently denied that the redundancies are connected to making the FSS more attractive to investors and yet the timing cannot be purely coincidental".
Surely the Government does not believe that they can do without the support of the work force. Many of those who stay on will be as angry and bitter as those who are made redundant, yet the Government seem happy to alienate those who joined the service for vocational reasons.
The Government has received representations from the union Prospect. Indeed, I understand that it left a number of questions with Ministers, not least about employees' pension rights. Mike Sparham, the negotiations officer for Prospect, says:
"we have sought assurances about pensions protection and have yet to receive any positive response. We know the civil service scheme is closed to private sector employees, so remaining in it will not be an option. We would like to know what the government's intentions are".
I think we all would.
Perhaps most serious of all is the issue of incorruptibility and security. I quote an employee:
"Our involvement in the Criminal Justice System"
means that it
"is paramount that we remain within the civil service as I believe if private companies were to take over the confidential and personal information that we deal with"

279WH
that
"could adversely affect the lives of people".
As part of the Home Office, the FSS is seen to be beyond reproach, and above all, beyond infiltration. What systems and mechanisms is the Government considering to safeguard not only the lives of staff and their families, but also the effectiveness of the criminal justice system? What consideration have the Government given to the value to the criminal world of getting hold of information from this organisation, which underpins the whole network of criminal intelligence? What will they do about background checks on staff? Who will monitor the companies and the FSS, whatever guise it takes, to ensure the highest standards of probity? Let us remember that the FSS is also a prime target for terrorists, as the citizens of Belfast know all too well. What guarantees will the Government give the new employers?
More generally, I ask the Minister to take this opportunity to reassure the Chamber about what will happen to the national DNA database. We must have an answer on that. The database contains the DNA records of convicted criminals and of suspects who have never been convicted or charged. The commercial value of that information may be limited today, but what about in 10 years' time? What will insurance companies pay for such data? No doubt biotech companies, too, would like access to it. There are ways to use, and, indeed, misuse, someone's genetic code that cause us anguish today. How will the Government limit the scope for even greater problems in future?
I believe that the proposals are driven simply by a desire to make one small patch in the black hole in Government finances the year before an election year. The Opposition has no desire to make life easier for the criminal. We do not believe that that is the Government's intention, but I fear that that could well be the effect, unless they address the matter properly.
10.49 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I begin by conveying the apologies of the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety, who cannot be with us this morning as she is fulfilling a long-standing commitment to address the Association of Police Authorities. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing this important debate on the future status of the Forensic Science Service. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Elmet (Colin Burgon), for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ), for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), all of whom powerfully expressed their views and those of their constituents.
In the short time available to me, I doubt that I will succeed in answering all the questions that were asked, but I shall do my best to answer several of them. I assure hon. Members that they will receive a proper letter containing a full answer to their questions.
The debate has been a useful and important opportunity to air several national concerns and several local constituency concerns. I welcome the recognition given during the debate to the contribution made by
280WH
Forensic Science Service staff to the work of the police in reducing crime. The staff do indeed have a well-earned, world-class reputation, and it has been good to emphasise that point, whatever differences of opinion there may be between hon. Members.
On 14 October, several of my hon. Friends, including, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet, met the Home Secretary and the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety and made clear the strength of feeling among FSS staff about the changes that were announced in July and the way in which the announcement was made. I hope that they will be reassured to learn that at a recent meeting with FSS trade union representatives, my hon. Friend apologised for the lack of notice given before the announcement, and gave an undertaking that they would be consulted regularly during the restructuring process. I am happy to repeat that apology and to reassure hon. Members with FSS laboratories in their constituencies.
We need to bear in mind, however, that the challenges facing the FSS did not begin with the decision to create a public-private partnership. The best value approach adopted by police forces is already leading to the development of a competitive market for forensic sciences, in which the police are establishing good working relationships with other suppliers. Two other organisations, LGC and Forensic Alliance, are working successfully with police forces, and already account for some 10 per cent. of market share. Consequently, the FSS has been forced to implement a 9 per cent. reduction in the size of its work force. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley described the prospect of the FSS being divided into a series of regional companies. Different companies may operate in different parts of the country, but I assure him that there are no plans to split up the FSS into smaller regional companies.
The status quo is not an option, and it is clear that we need to act to ensure that the FSS remains a leading-edge forensic organisation. The purpose of the public-private partnership is to ensure that it continues to have access to new developments in forensic technology and can build on the high quality professional skills of its staff to improve the support that it gives the police in reducing crime and making our communities safer places in which to live.
My hon. Friends rightly pointed out the recent improvements in the performance of the FSS. Indeed, in the last financial year, the FSS dealt with 150,000 cases—a record number. Its scientists appeared as expert witnesses in court 2,600 times, and attended approximately 1,700 crime scenes. Also last year, the FSS managed to achieve huge improvements in turn round times. That has continued this year, with 80 per cent. of jobs now delivered within 42 days, compared with only 40 per cent. in February. By next March, the target will rise again to 95 per cent., and that upward pressure will continue as customer expectations and a competitive market demand an ever-improving response to the changing needs of police forces.
We have to recognise that although those are impressive achievements, the structure of the FSS has major limitations. That is why Ministers have concluded that the kind of progress that I have described cannot be sustained unless the FSS is able to continue investing both in new techniques and in its work force. Hon.

281WH
Members will acknowledge that that requires access to development capital—a key issue, which the creation of the PPP will address.
Hon. Members have referred to a £10 million surplus from last year. They are correct, but the review concluded that merely to stand still, the FSS would require between £20 and £30 million of capital investment. Much more than that will be required if it is to remain a leading-edge organisation. Investment is critical to the growth of the FSS at a time when so many opportunities are being provided by new technology, and when other organisations have much more flexible access to development capital.
I can reassure the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who asked why the recent McFarland review was not in the public domain, that it will be placed in the Library of the House once any information that is commercially confidential has been extracted. I hope that he considers that sensible.
David Taylor: The Minister said that the prime justification was to improve access to investment capital. Would he accept that the private sector will pay higher rates for access to capital? On top of that, it will charge its profit element, and the taxpayer will have to pay more for the service both in the medium and the longer term. That does not stack up.
Paul Goggins: The business case will have to stack up, but in order for the FSS to be able to develop further its capacity to remain a leading-edge world-class organisation, it will have to have access to amounts of capital investment that will not be remotely possible if it remains wholly within the public sector.
I return to the McFarland review, which recognised that the FSS has made a success of its trading fund status, in that it is held in high regard by stakeholders and has met most of the operational and financial targets set by the Home Office. However, it asked what might have been achieved if performance had not been fettered by the constraints of trading fund status—in particular, by not having the managerial freedom and flexibility to respond to growing competition, and by its
282WH
inability to sustain the level of capital investment that is required if it is to remain at the leading edge of rapidly advancing science and technology.
The review highlighted the substantial risks facing the FSS. It concluded that after several years of rapid growth, it was significantly undercapitalised. I shall repeat that point for my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley: the report concluded that the organisation was significantly undercapitalised. It requires new money to improve its existing services—
Mr. Hoyle: I am very confused. If the business is making £10 million a year for the Exchequer, why not just put that money into the business? According to the Minister's figures, between £20 and £30 million is needed, so even in the worst case, the service will be wholly revitalised after three years.
Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend knows that the DNA work that the organisation carried out required investment of over £180 million. That is the kind of investment required if the FSS is to remain a world-class, leading-edge organisation, and it is a figure way beyond the very welcome £10 million surplus made last year. The investment required could never be funded year by year out of the surplus.
There are additional constraints on the FSS's ability to enter into enforceable contracts with its customers—an approach that can be difficult when the public sector is both purchaser and supplier. It must be able to enter into business alliances and joint ventures with private sector companies as an equal partner. That is particularly important for research and development, where investment in new technologies is crucial.
Time is against me. There are many more things that I wanted to say—about guaranteeing rights under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, and pension rights, for example, about which I know hon. Members are concerned. I will ensure that the remarks that I wanted to make are enclosed in letters to hon. Members. I repeat that this has been a useful debate, and several important issues have been raised. The Government are fully committed to ensuring that the FSS continues to remain a world leader in the development and delivery of forensic science.

Trans-European Networks
11 am
Albert Owen: The importance of a modern transport system to the economy of north Wales is one of the priorities on which the north Wales group of Labour MPs has been campaigning in the House and outside. It is one of our main issues, along with manufacturing and industry. We believe that it is vital, not only for the economic well-being of the area and for tourism, but for the quality of life of the people of north Wales.
The Government is right to endeavour to spread wealth through the UK, and in their objective of even economic development. To spread wealth evenly to north Wales would require a modern, upgraded transport system, which would provide the foundation and infrastructure to move people and freight across the area. It must be a multi-modal system for the 21st century. The trans-European networks—known as TENs in Euro-jargon—are set up to do that.
North and northwest Wales suffer from dual peripherality; geographically we are on the edge of both Wales and the UK, although I tend to think that that is a London-centric, or even Cardiff-centric, view. To the west of Wales is the Republic of Ireland, which is a major player in European policies. My constituency is smack in the middle of the area between Ireland and the UK. Indeed, it is the heart of the isles and deserves to be treated better in terms of transport.
The links between Wales and Ireland are strong and historic. The towns of Dun Laoghaire and Holyhead have served the cities of Dublin and London for many years. Royal Mail post was carried by road via Chester, Abergele, St. Asaph and Bangor, and across the Irish sea by package ships. The coming of the railways sped up that process and the two cities became closer, although it is argued that the direct rail link was more for transporting MPs from Ireland to Westminster than for moving mail quicker. Hon. Members who travel on the link will testify that MPs in those days had more power to improve things than north Wales MPs do now.
The link is still important. An estimated 2.7 million people a year travel through the port of Holyhead; the Celtic gateway, as it is known in my constituency, Wales and the rest of the UK. Improvement has been made to the port, with new berths and terminals financed by a mixture of private and public money, including European structural fund grants. The sea bridge from Ireland, Dublin and Dun Laoghaire to Holyhead, boasts the fastest ferry, which takes 90 minutes to cross compared with three and a half hours for conventional ferries. There is the largest conventional ferry in Europe, and the new Stena Adventurer is the largest ro-ro ferry in mainland Europe.
According to Anglesey county council and Welsh Development Agency figures, the larger car ferries carry an estimated 646,900 cars and lorries. The E22 Euro-route, or the A55 as it is now known, was completed in 2001. It accommodates some 30,000 vehicles a day, with the ferry companies Stena Line and Irish Ferries projecting an increase in the volume of vehicles, including cars, lorries and large vans. Indeed, they predict year-on-year growth.
284WH
The A55 is already feeling the strain, with major bottlenecks and serious problems. At Penmaen-bach, for example, subsidence caused single-line traffic and huge delays. That is why we need a modern railway system with a fully integrated mechanism.
The Minister will be aware of my campaign to establish scheduled Flights from RAF Valley to Cardiff, Dublin and other UK airports. If that succeeds, the Minister could come to Anglesey for business, take a quick walk up Snowdonia, which I know he is fond of, and be home for tea the same day. I am sure that he will support my campaign for an intra-air service. However, that is a debate for another day.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the idea has all-party support? The Conservative party would like to see RAF Valley used in a proper commercial manner, boosting tourism and businesses in the area.
Albert Owen: Absolutely. It has not only all-party support, but the support of the Wales Tourist Board, which yesterday announced that the plan was one of its priorities.
The railways are problematic, to say the least. We now have the completed A55 dual carriageway, the port and shipping developments that I have described and the improved road and rail links in the Republic of Ireland and the north of Ireland. I believe that the missing link is the north Wales railway. I welcome the strategic plan for UK railways from the Strategic Rail Authority and the Government.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the issue has full all-party support. Earlier, he mentioned the efforts of the north Wales Labour group. When will they meet Richard Bowker of the SRA, as Plaid Cymru did last week?
Albert Owen: We have already met Mr. Bowker on a number of occasions, and we have met other members of the SRA, Network Rail and the rail operators. As I said, the missing link is the north Wales railway. The 10-year plan is welcome after a long period of under-investment.
Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main problems in improving rail traffic in north Wales is not in north Wales itself, but in accessing the system to the east? Investment in north Wales is indeed crucial, but we also need better rights in England.
Albert Owen: I will come to the subject of the rail infrastructure in a second.
We must welcome the improvements in progress on the west coast main line. They were the first TENs priority when TENs came into force in 1994. The estimated cost of that project is somewhere in the region of £9 billion. Other projects in 1994 included the channel tunnel rail link, which is now operable in the south-east of England, and a rail link from Lame to Belfast to Dublin.
The Minister will know that the Crewe to Holyhead line forms part of the west coast main line, serving the north Wales coast and the port of Holyhead with its

285WH
links to Dublin. It is time for the strategy on the west coast main line to be brought west, to north Wales and northwest Wales. The modern Eurolink needs to be put in place to achieve the objectives of the Maastricht treaty, article 129(b) of which states that
"to enable citizens of the Union, economic operators and regional and local communities to derive full benefit from setting up an area without internal frontiers"
the Community should promote the
"interconnection and interoperability of national networks as well as access to such networks. It shall take account in particular of … island, landlocked and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Community."
I am sure that everybody in this Chamber agrees with those general objectives.
I was pleased when the Commission announced the enlargement of the trans-European transport networks in October this year. It proposed new projects with new funds to dynamise Europe. The total costs of the projects were estimated to be in the region of €220 billion. The press release that accompanied the announcement referred to trans-European networks as the
"motor and precondition for Europe's economic development and cohesion"
and stated that
"new rules and structures proposed should provide means of attracting more funding to the priority projects and turning them into reality".
Among the projects listed as priorities was the rail line between Crewe and Holyhead, with a date of 2008. It was listed alongside the west coast main line, which is to be completed by 2007. That is a major step forward. Upgrading the north Wales line was on the agenda in the 1980s, but little attention was given to it. It is now in an appalling state, including the stations, which were described by the chief executive of a leading train operator as the worst in the UK network.
The regional paper, the Daily Post, is running a campaign to improve safety and information at north Wales stations, where basic amenities such as toilets, information screens and waiting rooms are either lacking or well below basic standards of cleanliness. The lack of basic facilities does not accord with the objectives of the SRA, which calls for safe and welcoming stations. Journey times are not predictable or relaxing, as the SRA requests.
To be fair to Virgin trains, it has invested in new rolling stock; new, pioneering Super Voyagers and Pendolinos are expected in September 2004. Although the seven trains that were promised will not be coming, there will be a total of four trains, with an additional London to Llandudno train to be timetabled.
Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the capacity of the four trains from Bangor—the number of passengers that can possibly be carried—is less than that of the three trains that are operated already?
Albert Owen: It is a bit more technical than that. Virgin trains explains the reduction as being due to delays in the rail upgrading and the inability to run
286WH
trains at 140 mph. If the trains could be moved faster, we would have more trains and increased daily capacity, which I am sure is what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
My point for the purpose of the present debate is that the line speeds are as low as 75 mph in parts of north Wales, including Anglesey. That is a total waste of the new capacity that Virgin trains are promoting, which would allow its trains to reach a speed of 125 mph across the network. No wonder people in north Wales feel that the line is a Cinderella line. That is unacceptable for a designated major Euro-route linking the European capitals of Dublin and London.
Of course it is up to each EU member state to improve its own transport system and rail network. Cost is a major factor, yet crude estimates in respect of upgrades in the north Wales line and signalling to allow the new trains to run at 125 mph when they come into service are that the cost would be in the region of £ 10 million to £20 million. I remind the House that the cost of the west coast main line upgrading from London to Glasgow is in the region of £9 billion and I urge the Government to turn the TENs project for a modern, upgraded line between Crewe and Holyhead into reality.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): Will my hon. Friend read out those figures again? I was looking at information recently about the replacement of one group of points, and that cost £10 million. Is my hon. Friend saying that the whole of the railway line from Crewe to Anglesey could be made available for trains to run at 125 mph for between £20 million and £30 million?
Albert Owen: No. The information that I was given by Virgin when the Welsh Affairs Committee conducted its inquiry into railways was that most of the line now has the capacity to run at 100 mph-plus, but that areas of the line need upgrading. The figure for upgrading the whole line so that it could maximise its speed to 125 mph was £10 to £20 million.
The objective of TENs is to move people and freight quickly and reliably. I am sure that the Government shares that objective. The construction of the trans-European networks is an important element of economic growth and the creation of employment. North Wales deserves greater investment in its railways. The ports of Holyhead and Dun Laoghaire have benefited from new investment; there are new ships. The euro-route, the A55, is helping to spread wealth across north Wales. I ask the Minister to give priority to the modest work for which the EU is calling and to work with the EU, the Assembly and the rail company to restore pride in that important link.
I do not want to see north Wales lose out in investment or economically in the future. I used the comparison of the A55, which was begun in the 1980s from Chester to Bangor and across the bridge to Anglesey, but stopped a few miles into Anglesey. The Labour Government in 1997 gave that road the final go-ahead. I remember my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—when he was a Wales Office Minister—signing the document to allow the A55 to be completed.
I have no doubt that Anglesey lost out significantly in the period when the road was not dualled. Business complained that there was traffic congestion, and used

287WH
that as a factor for not investing in Anglesey. When the road was completed in 2001, the port of Holyhead was fast getting back on its feet, and the economy started to catch up with the rest of north Wales.
I believe that by not investing in and maximising the potential benefits of a fast rail service, north Wales is losing out, in the same way that Anglesey lost out through that major investment not being completed. We need to see a modern west coast line that really is a west coast line, stretching to the west of Wales and to Ireland. I ask the Government to give that greater priority, to adhere to the guidelines of the TENs project and to ensure that the project is completed by 2008, if not sooner.
11.16 am
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on securing this important debate. As he has informed us, his own constituency in north Wales contains key transport infrastructure on the trans-European transport network; the TEN, as it is known.
The A55 is part of the TEN road network, and I am glad to hear my hon. Friend's views on the way the economy of Ynys Môn has improved as a consequence of the A55 being dualled. I remember driving along that road before it was dualled; it was very different then. The thrust of the TEN is to put in place a modern, interconnected network that will enhance trade and the competitiveness of the European economy, will give life to the concepts of the internal market and provide more territorial cohesion.
In conjunction with complementary policies to open up markets and remove restrictive operational practices, it is hoped that the network, which comprises road and rail infrastructure, strategically important airports and ports, as well as transport information systems, will improve competitiveness and growth in Europe. However, as my hon. Friend told us that come at a price. I believe that he quoted a figure of about £220 billion, whereas I have heard that the figure is £350 billion. Those are fantasy sums. Europe cannot afford projects at those kinds of prices. We must examine the matter on a project-by-project basis if we are to inject reality into those great aims and schemes, aspirational though they are.
Ian Lucas: Will my hon. Friend clarify the effect of the announcement that was made in October by the European Union? Does it mean that additional funds will be made available to assist the north Wales line, or does it mean that he has to make the case to the European Union?
Dr. Howells: I am glad to clarify that for my hon. Friend. We have to make the case, whether it is for the upgrade of parts of the infrastructure that might be designated as part of the TEN project, or for a completely new route. That is not an easy task. Everyone wants a share of that money, and there are ten accession countries. There will be a marked shift eastwards and to the centre of Europe in terms of where that money will be spent. We have an important case to
288WH
make. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn has reminded us, there is an issue of peripherality, both geographically and economically. The gross domestic product in Wales is 20 per cent. below the UK average. The European average is in doubt, as no one can work it out, but there is a serious deficit, and transport has a part to play in it.
The benefit to the UK of TENs is twofold. First, there is the prospect of accessing funding for our projects on the TENs map. When the guidelines were established in 1996, 14 priority projects were identified. They are due to receive a generous proportion of the overall TENs budget between them. That runs to about £3 billion between 2000 and 2006. Four of those priority projects are wholly or partly in the UK: the channel tunnel rail link; the west coast main line rail project, which is probably Europe's busiest railway line when both passengers and freight are taken into account; the road link between Ireland, the UK and the Benelux countries; and the rail link between Cork and Belfast. Those projects have been awarded over £150 million, in grants, from the TENs project. As my hon. Friend reminded us, we have partly benefited from that with the A55, with improvements in Holyhead and, more importantly, with the west coast main line.
Chris Ruane: My hon. Friend has listed several projects. Does he know where one of the more recent developments, the improvement of Mostyn docks, lies on the list of priorities? Has its profile in Europe been lifted?
Dr. Howells: I have no idea, but I will certainly try to find out for my hon. Friend. I am not sure whether Mostyn docks is a priority on the TENs list, but I am sure that he will make a good case for it.
The second benefit of TENs is to our hauliers, who will benefit from the improved infrastructure and links throughout continental Europe, particularly when markets open up after accession. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn would not make the mistake of assuming that because some of those improvements are in England, they will not affect Wales. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) said that the most important transport connections for Wales are those that run through England, and that is a significant point. As one who uses the rail system constantly, I know how important those links are to lines such as the great western route.
We should benefit as much as any other part of Europe from the channel tunnel rail link. That project is going well; touch wood. Phase 1 has been delivered on time and below budget. Phase 2, leading into St. Pancras, is well under way. I am sure that that could be the subject of another debate, but it illustrates the point that many key TENs projects will benefit Wales as well as the areas in which they are being constructed.
Mr. Llwyd: Although I fully agree with the Minister, I must draw his attention to a problem. The Conwy valley line and the north Wales coastline are hopefully going to be upgraded for freight. That is important to those of us who arc Members of Parliament for north Wales, but it might be scuppered by a freeze on freight

289WH
grants in England. Following on from the Minister's remarks, with which I agree, I urge better cross-border understanding.
Dr. Howells: That is an important point, Mr. Deputy Chairman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am a lot of things, but I am not a deputy chairman.
Dr. Howells: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The nomenclature of this place is often a mystery to me.
I must reply to the important point raised by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) about freight movements in Wales. He will be glad to know that part of the railway line in his constituency will be used as a test bed for the latest technology in the world on rail safety and management, so that we can run more trains along the track and make better use of railway capacity. He is quite right to highlight the issue of freight, which is important.
Just last week I had discussions with some of the most important companies involved, and they want to hear that we have a positive attitude towards freight on the railway lines. The freight grants are important; there is no question about that. The budget For the coming year is, I think, between £30 million and £40 million, but that is not what counts. The sums involved in moving freight along the railway lines are vast and we must give reassurances that that is the proper way for the country, so I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn knows, the route in question is also an important freight route and should be more important as we try to get more traffic off the motorways and on to the railways; not an easy task.
My hon. Friend will welcome, I am sure, the benefits that the west coast main line upgrade is delivering. By next September, the journey time between London and Holyhead will have been reduced from 4 hours and 20 minutes to 3 hours and 50 minutes. He is right to mention the problem of reliability and punctuality, so I am sure that the figure that I quoted will be a welcome reduction in the overall time that that journey takes. However, if it is impossible for the travelling public to depend on the train arriving somewhere around that time, we shall lose the battle to win more passengers for the rail network, which is such an important consideration.
Albert Owen: My hon. Friend is right that the line speeds up to Crewe will benefit people travelling to and from London, or, indeed, to Birmingham and other destinations. However, does he not accept that many people and businesses that trade with the Republic of Ireland or along the north Wales coast will not see those
290WH
benefits? My point is that we need to be on a par and have a level playing field with businesses and tourism to the east of Crewe.
Dr. Howells: I was rather envious when my hon. Friend talked about 75 mph limits. He should try travelling on the excellent valleys lines; believe me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the limits there are often a lot lower, and that is the busiest commuter network in Wales, between Pontypridd and Cardiff. That line is extremely busy and thousands of people depend on it every day. However, my hon. Friend is right that ultimately the quality of the infrastructure will enable the journey to become faster and more dependable.
The great problem is that although we all want lines to be upgraded, the cost is phenomenal. We know, for example, that originally the west coast main line upgrade was costed at about £2 billion. It then rose mysteriously to £14 billion, and we have now got it back down to about £8 billion to £9 billion. Those are huge sums of money. At the moment it costs something like between £12 million and £15 million to build one mile of railway. A lot of those costs are due to sophisticated signalling systems, safety devices and so on but the costs of electrification are in addition to that. I hope that my hon. Friend bears that in mind.
Albert Owen: The point of the European Commission's announcement is that member states can now tap into the cohesion fund as well as the structural fund, which makes financing more attractive. Will the Minister consider that and give priority to this round of funding as opposed to the last round?
Dr. Howells: We gave a lot of priority to the last round, and we have a good team working on the issue. We are not going to give up the opportunity of getting some of those structural funds, which could do so much to help transportation in and around Wales. However, there are still a lot of misconceptions about what constitutes a good railway and good railway infrastructure, and I do not want to encourage my hon. Friend to think that a diesel set is somehow inferior to an electric set. On the contrary; lots of countries are going for diesel sets and diesel turbos because they are much more flexible. They can go places that one cannot go with electrification, which I am sure is an important consideration for my hon. Friend.
I should like to thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue, which is important to Wales. Transportation infrastructure is often the means by which we improve the economy of whole regions. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which has been useful, and I hope that we can consider in conjunction with the Welsh Assembly how railways can benefit the Principality in ways that until now they perhaps have not.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Identity Cards
2 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: I am delighted to have secured this debate because many hon. Members are interested in the consultation on an entitlement or identity card system for the United Kingdom, the cost of that system and the questions about civil liberties to which it gives rise.
It is curious that at a time when the Conservative party has dusted down a former, benighted Home Secretary, one of his more controversial and less successful ideas is similarly dusted down and taken off the shelves in Whitehall. Let me say at the outset that I am opposed to ID cards, both in principle and on grounds of practicality. To put it at its most brutal, I do not believe that the best way of remembering, as we do this week, those who gave their lives for freedom is to introduce the sort of society that would have had Saddam Hussein drooling. The apparatus of totalitarian repression depends on knowing who and where every citizen is and was, and which God they worship. The Government may have dropped the God bit, but the potential for all the rest remains.
Brian White: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the many western European democracies that have ID cards are totalitarian states?
Mr. Thomas: No, I am not saying that, but every one of those countries has a written constitution and this country does not. If the Government provide a written constitution that I can sell to my electorate, I might agree with the hon. Gentleman, but until we have that safeguard, we must bear it in mind that, without a written constitution, ID cards can be used repressively by totalitarian regimes.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Thomas: Not at this stage, but I will consider doing so later. As he is sitting next to me, the hon. Gentleman is in a position to catch my eye.
At the moment, we balance privilege with responsibility. It is a privilege to drive a car, and it is a responsibility to pass a test, hold a driving licence, and tax a vehicle and so on. It is a privilege to enter another country, but a passport is needed. Other forms of identity, including credit cards, party membership cards such as my Plaid Cymru card and parliamentary photo passes, are mere conveniences that we can opt to use. An ID card system tips that scale and reduces citizen to cipher. It forgets that the Government should be subject to the people and instead makes the people subject to the Government. The central tenet of freedom—for people to be able to move around as they please, live where they please and do what they want, as long as they do not harm others—is reduced to a nannying, bullying attitude that the Government must know where people are and what they are doing.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones rose—
Mr. Thomas: I give way to my hon. Friend from Wales.
Mr. Jones: I thank my colleague for calling me his hon. Friend because we are friends and I respect his
292WH
views. However, I would like an explanation of something. It is odd that the Member for Ceredigion, who is probably the worst-placed Member, in terms not of knowledge but of his constituency, to understand the need for ID systems, should be taking part in this debate.
Mr. Thomas: I must confess that I do not understand that intervention. Why am I any worse placed than the other 600-odd Members of Parliament who have a view on the matter?
Martin Linton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the sort of entitlement card system that the Home Secretary is likely to propose is a family of ID cards starting with the 40 million people who hold driving licences? They will receive an enhanced driving licence/ID card, and the 38 million people holding passports will receive a passport card. The entitlement card will be introduced along precisely those lines that he says he has no objection to—that it should be an enhanced passport/enhanced driving licence. When all those existing cards have been replaced by entitlement cards, precious few people in this country will not have one. What would be his objection then to the remaining few having one?
Mr. Thomas: I shall address that interesting point a little later when I discuss mission creep, but I say now to the hon. Gentleman that I do not know what the Government's plans are. There is a consultation and there are options, but we have not been told what the Government's thinking is. We do not know whether we will be forced to pay £40, £50 or whatever, or whether the cards will be compulsory or non-compulsory. We do not know whether the proposal will be, in fact, a backdoor tax on our identity. I am interested in those questions. One reason for initiating this debate was to find out precisely what the Government had to say on those matters. I look forward as much as the hon. Gentleman to the Minister's response.
Martin Linton rose—
Dr. Nick Palmer rose—
Mr. Thomas: I shall not give way just yet.
David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is only on page 1.
Mr. Thomas: Actually, I am on page 2. Of course, I am not reading my notes but merely looking at them, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. May 1 be of assistance? Many hon. Members have applied to speak this afternoon. The more they intervene on the hon. Gentleman, the less chance they have of being called.
Mr. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is a word to the wise, as we say in Welsh.
The Minister may say that the scheme is voluntary and that it is for an entitlement card, not a compulsory card. That is probably the worst of both worlds—a

293WH
bureaucratic, expensive, nightmarish mess that would inevitably become a de facto, if not de jure, compulsory system.
Any kind of ID card will need a national database. No Government has a good record on creating national databases, and that applies to this Government. Nature abhors a bureaucracy. Child tax credits, the passport office fiasco, census figures, the Child Support Agency—all those major database projects have been beleaguered by problems. No, my mind boggles at the cock-ups that will surround the introduction of an ID card. Every time people lose it or change their address, they will have to report to the authorities, on pain of prosecution, and the potential for more mistakes and fraud, with which I shall deal later, will creep in.
The Government has already admitted that such a database would have to be collated from scratch. The Government do not take quite the line that the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) takes, that of merely bringing together current databases. A proper system will have to be underpinned by a new database created from scratch.
Martin Linton: For most purposes, the entitlement card would use existing public services databases. If someone wanted to check whether a person were entitled to go to a school or to use a library, they would access the database of the local authority or the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, rather than a new database. Like the hon. Gentleman, I question the usefulness of a central database. If there were to be one, it would consist only of the numbers of the cards issued, not information about the individuals. Such information would remain with the public service agencies, so there would not be a huge increase in central computer records.
Mr. Thomas: I would regard that situation with even more horror, because it would break the golden rule of data protection: information collected for one purpose must not be used for another purpose. I shall return to that shortly.
The Government has admitted that a national database would be required, whether for just one number or 1,000, but the Home Secretary has been uncharacteristically coy about the cost of establishing it. I asked about that last week in Home Office questions, but he refused to give me a figure. Legislation may be proposed in the Queen's Speech, but we do not know what it will cost. A sum of £1.6 billion has been hinted at, but some people estimate that an amount closer to £3 billion will be necessary. That is more than the entire NHS capital budget for 2003–04 or the cost of some 60,000 extra police officers.
Is it really a priority for the UK to spend billions—it would be billions, whichever way one looked at it—on ID cards? And to what would they entitle us? They would entitle us to things that we are entitled to anyway: the NHS, public education, pensions and benefits, all of which are paid for in trust by the public. It is true that many MPs, including some in the Labour party, opt out of such services, but the vast majority of the public do not. The only responsibility that people have when
294WH
accessing such services is to prove their identity, something that is easily and cheaply done without an ID card system. Just 5 per cent. of benefit fraud is identity fraud. The vast majority of fraud involves the misrepresentation of circumstances.
I would like to tackle the Government's arguments head on. However, as I said earlier, the Government have not presented a unified argument in their discussion of a national ID card. They have been as convincing as they have been consistent. We were told first that ID cards would deter international terrorism and political violence; next that they would enable the Government to end benefit fraud; and then that they were the panacea that would stop illegal immigration, asylum troubles and illegal working in the UK. The Labour Government, much like the Tory Government in 1995, has used any justification for the introduction of ID cards. It is a clear example of a solution in search of a problem.
Looking at the arguments in turn, there is clear evidence that ID cards are not necessary to counter terrorism. Mr. Adrian Beck of the university of Leicester was commissioned by John Major's Government in 1995 to examine identity cards for use in crime fighting and prevention. After the attacks on 11 September, he said that
"there is a lack of evidence that an ID initiative would have a significant impact on the problem of terrorism, or indeed on more generalised crime…If one legitimate person has the technology to make an ID card then another (illegitimate) person can have it too".
Regrettably, the twin tower terrorists had legal identification or acceptable forgeries, which is notable as the United States has a near universal identity system based around driver licensing.
The Government has adduced no evidence, and I have not been able to find any elsewhere, that ID cards directly relate to a reduction in the threat of terrorism. It could be argued that, in some cases, such as the Palestinian territories, for example, their abuse may exacerbate the situation.
The Government's shift from justifying ID cards as a weapon for combating terrorism to justifying them as a means of tackling benefit fraud is best seen through the official consultation paper. On 3 July, however, the Cabinet Office reported that
"social security fraud rooted in identity misuse amounted to between £20m and £50m per year."
That is less than 1 per cent. of the welfare benefits budget and less than the cost of mistakes made by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Shortly after 11 September, I went to open a new bank account at my local bank. A member of staff who knew me greeted me in person, in Welsh, saying, "Shwd ychchi, Mr. Thomas," which means, "Come in, sit down." There are not many al-Qaeda terrorists who speak Welsh; there may be a few, but the staff knew me. I explained what I wanted to do and she explained that I could not do it without proof of identity. The problem is that a fake ID card can open a bank account, which may be used for money laundering, but my being recognised in person by staff at the bank could not.
Dr. Palmer: I apologise for the fact that I have to go to a Committee shortly; it is not lack of interest that will take me away.

295WH
Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, given the many circumstances where he needs to identify himself, it is making a virtue of ineffectiveness to say that it is better not to have a card that identifies him beyond doubt?
Mr. Thomas: It is precisely the opposite. Anyone can identify themselves as somebody if they have the means fraudulently to identify themselves as that person. Any system is open to abuse, and it is no more reliable to require an ID card as the only system of identity than it is to require people to return to the bank with the usual identity paraphernalia. Just to let Members know, in case they need to open a bank account, my parliamentary photo pass was not sufficient ID for that bank.
The final argument that the Government advanced was about illegal immigration and employment. We already issue ID cards to refugees, who in the spirit of the times we call asylum seekers. The Government do not have asylum under control. They need to issue 15,000 amnesties on the basis of bureaucratic inefficiency rather than deal with bona fide refugees, and they now try to convince us that registering nearly 60 million people can be done efficiently and that it will be effective against a few thousand illegal workers or refugees.
Many of the complaints surrounding illegal immigration are about illegal employment. The alternative view is that such people should be allowed to work while they seek refugee status. There is little evidence that the introduction of ID cards would significantly hinder the black market in illegal labour. Does anyone believe that the gang masters who today take on illegal workers with no national insurance number and no right to work will be discouraged by ID cards tomorrow? They will continue to exploit the same desperate people in the same way.
As with terrorism, the real issue is intelligence and the tracking of criminality. ID cards might make the job of the police a little easier after apprehension and arrest, but in a world where young men without criminal records live as sleepers until they commit a terrorist act, ID cards are useless. There is no correlation between the use of ID cards and crime rates in western countries. There is, however, plenty of evidence that criminals already profit from forging identities. No matter how sophisticated ID cards are, they are always open to forgery.
Michael Levi, a criminologist and expert on fraud at University College Cardiff has remarked that
"the issue is really one of cost benefit analysis; crime prevention mainly consists of modest measures which make noticeable reductions in crime. Secure ID cards are one such measure, though whether, even at a pragmatic rather than a rights-based level, their benefits outweigh their costs to civil liberties is an open question".
Identity problems are not a significant reason why prosecutions fail to stick. The idea that the police are unable to assess a person's identity is, in Levi's opinion, not plausible:
"In this situation, identity cards are an irrelevance, a tough soundbite that has no practical effect".
I have not attempted to deal with the unfortunate history of the "sus" laws and the potential impact of ID cards on race issues. We can all imagine what those
296WH
police officers in Cheshire who were filmed by the BBC would have done with ID legislation behind them when they faced black and Asian people on the street. We have only to look at the misery experienced by the civilian population in the Palestinian territories today to see the havoc caused by an ID system married to so-called profiling.
One important question, which the Government has in the main ignored, is what information will be available to Departments, and perhaps others, via an ID card system. Furthermore, what information will be kept on the card itself? On 16 January this year, the Home Secretary said that he wanted a simple card system to store
"a unique personal number that would verify the holder's identity and establish their access to public services such as healthcare, schooling and social security."
The problem is one of mission creep.
Mr. James Paice: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the nub of the issue? If the ID card has a unique number, it must be directly linked to an individual's identity, which cannot be forged or fraudulently obtained. That takes us back to biometrics and other ways of ensuring that the number relates to the person carrying the card.
Mr. Thomas: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in that regard, but he should take two other issues on board. First, that would entail a national database, where mismatching numbers with details would lead to mistakes. Secondly. Biometrics would not stop the fraudulent use of such a card system on a day-to-day basis. Someone could fraudulently obtain an ID card, put their identity on it—the technology will be available—and present it at the bank. A student in Swansea had his identity stolen by al-Qaeda—identity theft happens now, and it would happen under an ID card system.
Information is power. As a Government obtains more information on their citizens, they become more powerful. If information is used judiciously and tempered by clear limits and safeguards against abuse, the potential for unwarranted surveillance is diminished. However—this point was raised by the hon. Member for Battersea—no right to privacy is recognised in UK law, nor is there a general right to know about what is done or held in our names. We cannot check, as a matter of right, that what is recorded in various databases is accurate and that improper records are eliminated. No Department may be prosecuted for a data protection offence. The data protection registrar has warned that the Data Protection Act 1984
"would not provide effective protection against the disclosure of information and cross-matching of files which might follow the introduction of a widely usable national identification system".
We must take that warning into account.
We must also take account of the stigma and humiliation of constantly having to prove citizenship or legal immigrant status. In 1996, under the Conservative Government, the Home Office commissioned the Scarman centre to carry out research on the way that ID cards were used in other European countries. It found that identity checks carried out by the police were a

297WH
significant source of tension for ethnic minority groups, and in France, Germany and the Netherlands, the police disproportionately stopped those groups. In the UK last year, while nationally the number of white people stopped by the police fell by 18 per cent., the number of black people stopped increased by 4 per cent.
Martin Linton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the first sentence in the consultation paper states that the Government have excluded the possibility of a card that it would be compulsory to carry? With respect, his points are not relevant to his thesis
Mr. Thomas: As I understand it, it will not be compulsory to carry the cards but it will be compulsory to report to a police station later to be identified. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman.
There is potential here for misuse of personal information. Once all the information is stored in Government databases there will be no guarantee that its use will be limited. The golden rule of information privacy is that information collected by the Government for one purpose should not be used for another purpose without the consent of the person to whom the information pertains.
The central issue is one of trust, and I do not believe that people currently trust politicians or Governments of any political colour to maintain such a cumbersome system safely and effectively. We have to take it on trust that a massive identification bureaucracy would facilitate our way of life rather than undermine the freedoms that we take for granted, yet error rates in processing data are high. What impact could wrong data on one's card have on one's life? For that reason, a similar scheme in a similar country, Australia, modelled on a constitution similar to ours was abandoned after public opposition.
Faced with those problematic objections to ID cards the Cabinet is split down the middle. We have watched the Home Secretary do the hokey-cokey with his colleagues as a Bill on ID cards pops in and out of the Queen's Speech. We now come up against the final desperate argument, which we have heard from a few Members already in interventions: everyone else has them, so why should not we? I make this point. Of the 11 European Union countries that have ID cards, in only four is it compulsory to carry them, and all 11 have written constitutions. The Home Secretary wilfully ignored that point when I put it to him in the House last week, introducing the ridiculous canard of the new European constitution. I am talking about a written constitution for the United Kingdom, which has nothing to do with the European constitution.
We are back where we started, with privileges and responsibilities. If we ever agree to ID cards, we as citizens will be extending a privilege to the Government. It is not the Government's to demand, but it is ours as citizens to give. I urge the Government to reject ID cards as the expensive, unnecessary, illiberal and over-burdensome bureaucracy that they are. If they insist on them, and if we agree, they must shoulder their responsibility and renew their contract with the citizens
298WH
in the form of a written Bill of Rights and constitution. Anything less, and ID cards will represent a real blow to democracy in the nations of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am delighted that a large number of Members have risen to their feet, but may I say that if they all take too much time, they will not all get in?
2.22 pm
David Winnick: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing the debate. I tried to do the same, without success, and I am pleased that at long last there is an opportunity to debate this subject. I note that a number of my hon. Friends take attitudes different from mine, but there is no reason why we should not have a good debate in the parliamentary Labour party. I understand from the press, and only from the press, that a good deal of discussion on the matter—friendly, I am sure—is going on at Cabinet level. It would be surprising if that were not the case.
I remain sceptical about identity cards, for some if not all of the reasons that the hon. Member for Ceredigion mentioned. There would be high expectations that such cards would deal effectively with various kinds of domestic criminality and terrorism as well as with illegal immigration. Should such cards be introduced, they might be seen in some parts of the country, although not by parliamentarians or Ministers, as a panacea for the matters that I have just mentioned.
Let us be clear about the compulsion element. As I understand it, it has been suggested that one would not always have to carry the card, but it would be compulsory to give details about oneself. Without that, the scheme would never get off the ground. It would be an offence not to give such information. Some people might want to break the law, and I do not condone that in any way. But we have to understand that that could well be the position.
As for not carrying the card—I accept that it probably will not be compulsory, as the Minister more or less nodded at that suggestion—it is inevitable that at virtually all stages of contact with officialdom and the police, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion mentioned, one would be asked to produce the card. There would be an inbuilt suspicion if someone did not have the card.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Government have said that it would not be compulsory to carry the card. Does my hon. Friend think that, once the cards existed, it would be long before carrying them became compulsory? The first time that there was a major terrorist incident there would be calls for that to happen.
David Winnick: I am sure that that would be the position. In time, it would be argued that since everyone had given information, because it was the law to do so, there was no reason why law-abiding citizens should not carry cards.
Does anyone seriously believe that terrorism would be undermined by ID cards? I want to make it clear that if I thought that terrorism would be more effectively dealt with by ID cards, I would be liable to change my

299WH
mind. The security of our people and country must be foremost. However, let us consider 9-11—as it is referred to in the United States and elsewhere. Can anyone really say that the atrocities carried out by those criminals would have been avoided if ID cards had been introduced? The culprits were lawfully in the United States at the time. Would the 30 years of sustained IRA terrorism have been undermined and weakened by ID cards? When I was a member of the Opposition in the House of Commons, none of us suggested that ID cards would be useful and, to my knowledge, no Minister or Government Back Bencher suggested anything of the kind.
I do not wish to be misunderstood in saying this, but perhaps to curry favour the Home Secretary said that he had no idea how many illegal immigrants there are in the United Kingdom. Are we to conclude that his counterparts in those EU countries with ID cards could truthfully tell their people or their media how many illegal immigrants there are? It is wrong to say that we should have such cards and that, lo and behold, we will no longer be faced with the problem of people being in our country illegally, which we all oppose.
Identity fraud is undoubtedly a problem. It is interesting to note that, in its consultation paper, the Home Office conceded that ID cards
"could perversely result in an increased risk of…fraud."
That is because various financial institutions may rely too much on such cards and not carry out the checks that are necessary to safeguard people's accounts. In the same paper, the Home Office accepts that ID cards
"could become a target for organised criminals".
I accept that, with the latest technology, fraud would be more difficult, but international criminals would do their utmost to produce cards that may at first look genuine. As the Home Office conceded, it is right to recognise that international criminals are not going to give up if ID cards are introduced.
Martin Linton: Does my hon. Friend not accept that the ID or entitlement card, as proposed by the Home Affairs Committee when he and I were members, would contain only information on identity to link the holder to the card, and that to forge a card one would either need to forge one's iris or fingerprint, or the information in public service computers? I am not saying that that is not possible, but simply by changing the card one could not forge it in any meaningful way.
David Winnick: My hon. Friend is an enthusiast for cards. I have conceded that forgery would be difficult, unlike in the case of wartime cards. However, the fact remains that the Home Office itself, in its consultation paper, which I know that he has read, concedes that forgery is more than a possibility.
I am sure that the Home Secretary is putting great pressure on his Cabinet colleagues so that ID cards can come about. The latest thing that I have read in the press—true or otherwise—is that a draft Bill will be included in the Queen's Speech. I hope that those members of the Cabinet who have a number of reservations will be able to persuade the Home Secretary not to go ahead with the scheme. It will not produce what he believes it will produce.
300WH
I end on this note. For just over half a century, we have gone without ID cards. The decision to abolish them in 1952—and I am old enough to remember that—was the right decision, albeit one taken by a Conservative Government. I wish that it had been taken by the Labour Government before 1952. All kinds of reasons for cards are advanced, and I accept that ID cards would not make this country anything like a police state. I do not want to give such an impression because it would be nonsensical. As some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, EU countries that have ID cards are hardly police states or anywhere near them, but are as democratic as ourselves. However, we have a different tradition in this country. We have not had such cards except in wartime. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I would need a lot of persuading that ID cards were necessary to deal with the problems that face us, particularly terrorism. I hope that the cards will not come about.
2.31 pm
Mr. Mark Field: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing this important debate, and I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) for his impassioned plea. I very much agree with their instinctive views, although I suspect that we shall see the other side of the argument paraded during much of the next hour before the winding-up speeches.
As an instinctive and rational libertarian, I oppose the notion of ID cards, either on a compulsory or voluntary basis. The hon. Member for Walsall, North and his colleague, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), made the valid point that once a voluntary ID card comes into play there is a risk of a creeping sense of quasi-compulsion that will make it difficult to go about everyday life without such a card, particularly if one wishes to open a bank account or do anything else that requires a form of identity to be shown.
My main concern is that ID cards fundamentally shift the delicate balance between the individual and the state. They also bring about a reversal of the common-law presumption of innocence. That would be bad enough, but there are major issues in relation to the practicality of the proposals—or non-proposals—that may follow the Queen's Speech, such as the vast cost that a compulsory scheme would entail and the difficulties in policing and enforcing the scheme. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. A failure to enforce such a scheme would make the entire thing redundant. As has been mentioned by other hon. Members, the likelihood of a determined policy of forgery and identity fraud would undermine the protection that would otherwise be afforded by such a scheme.
As has been mentioned, national ID cards were introduced in this country during the Second World War, and the Home Secretary has given a clear indication that they are back on the agenda as part of the Government's policy on asylum and their war on terrorism. My constituency, in the heart of London, stands to be most affected by the proposals. In addition to a residential

301WH
population of 120,000, a further 800,000 people a day travel to work in the Cities of London and Westminster, and countless other tourists and shoppers visit attractions such as Westminster abbey, this place, St. Paul's cathedral and Buckingham palace. It is probably fair to say that the few square miles that make up my constituency superficially have least to lose from the implementation of a rigorously enforced compulsory ID card scheme, if only because so many of the landmarks in my patch are seen as high-profile targets for a terrorist attack in the UK. However. I believe that a national ID card scheme has less to do with keeping the population safe than it does with imposing control over people—a point that was alluded to by the hon. Member for Ceredigion in his introductory comments.
I accept that we shall have to grow accustomed to wider surveillance of certain groups in our country, but that does not justify a wholesale erosion of civil liberties. The introduction of ID cards will be a significant step towards dismantling the traditional democratic values of freedom and tolerance that have underpinned our open society and which so many of us hold dear to our heart.
Brian White: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that at the moment he has to give information about himself in a variety of ways to a variety of organisations, which increases the risk that a piece of wrong data gets replicated in myriad databases? An ID card would simplify that and ensure that the right information was given every time.
Mr. Field: I shall come on to that point in a moment, because the fact that not only do we have a large number of forms of identification but they are all on computer lists is regularly used as an objection against those on my side of the debate.
My party has traditionally recognised the importance of fostering values of individual responsibility and self-determination in our fellow countrymen. I speak as the son of someone who came to this country from abroad—my mother was a refugee twice by the age of 15 and came here from central Europe. Many people come from nations where authority flows from a heavily centralised state. All too little reliance seems to be placed in those countries on the freedom of individuals to live their lives free from the demands of officialdom. A culture of freedom underpins our mature democracy which should not be undermined except in times of extreme national emergency, such as during a fully fledged world war, and I do not believe that the war on terrorism is such a time.
As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) said, we all have birth certificates, driving licences and national insurance numbers, and an array of other information on each of us is held on debit, credit and store cards. The hon. Gentleman may well then ask what the objection is to another means of identification. In practical terms, however, any obligatory ID scheme is likely to take many years to establish and will cost the taxpayer an ongoing fortune both to implement and administer. In view of that expense, the very notion that ID cards could be introduced as a merely temporary measure is likely to receive short shrift from this or any Government.
302WH
In any case, experience tells us that the argument for restrictions on freedom being short term tends to disappear rapidly with the passing of time. I spent all too many days in Committee discussing what was then the Licensing Bill, and many of us will recall that a lot of our archaic restrictions on alcohol licensing were introduced as temporary measures during world war one. Even the commercial deregulation of the last decade or so has left some of those antiquated rules fairly intact.
In the feverish and security-conscious atmosphere that has inevitably been with us since 11 September 2001, the long-standing importance that we in this country attach to individual freedom from state intervention appears to have been swept away. It is therefore incumbent on the Government, and particularly on the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, to explain precisely how any new laws will protect us from the existing terrorist threat.
Let us not forget that this country has for many centuries been a safe and popular haven for migrants, precisely because of the knowledge that there is a reliance on the traditional values associated with freedom of the individual and the rule of law. The events of 11 September 2001 changed the general outlook of countless thousands, but if the rest of us really believe that those appalling outrages changed the whole world beyond recognition, we are tacitly accepting that the terrorists and terrorism itself have won.
Some serious practical considerations suggest that ID cards are likely to be ineffective in preventing terrorism. However expensive the technology that we use, an increasingly sophisticated network of international terrorists will find it possible, perhaps even easy, to forge or simply steal an identity. Next, we shall have to employ a vast army of public officials to administer and police the entire scheme. Short of there being almost continuous surveillance, those citizens, including, presumably, any would-be terrorists not wishing to co-operate in such a scheme, could go to ground with impunity.
Many civil libertarians have argued that the police will use the excuse of compulsory ID cards to target foreigners and demand their co-operation, which will make them feel even more alienated. To be honest, my fear is that the opposite will happen, especially in central London. I believe that the Metropolitan police, especially in the aftermath of the Stephen Lawrence campaign, will find that the culture of political correctness will make it less rather than more likely that a policeman will stop a prospective terrorist from an ethnic background and demand to see his ID card.
The Criminal Justice Bill, which is working its way through the Lords—I am sure that the Minister hopes that it will conclude its passage in the next fortnight—contains provisions to end the double jeopardy rule for murder. In addition to compulsory ID cards, we are promised a series of measures that aim to curtail the legal right of some criminal suspects. The important thing to remember with such new laws is that when the state adopts draconian powers against strangers today, it tends to use them against one's friends tomorrow and oneself the day after.

303WH
In times of national crisis, it is easy to dismiss a highbrow, and perhaps slightly academic, defence of the rule of law. The hon. Member for Ceredigion made such a defence earlier this afternoon, and I hope that I have made a similar defence of civil liberties. At such times, the Government inevitably face great difficulties, and I would not like to be in the Minister's shoes when trying to present a policy that will keep the citizens of this country happy and secure, but it is precisely during these times that the rights of the individual must be defended with the utmost vigour.
2.41 pm
Mr. Martin Salter: I apologise if I struggle a little today. I am getting used to wearing glasses, which is part of the ageing process, and I will probably look in the wrong direction.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I help the hon. Gentleman? It gets worse as one gets older. I note that several hon. Members rose at the same time as the hon. Gentleman. We can accommodate them all if they are brief, but we must remember that it is a matter for the Member who secured the debate to obtain a reply from the Minister.
Mr. Salter: Thank you for those wise words, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to be as brief as possible.
I speak as an instinctive libertarian—a child of the '60s—but as someone who has reached the conclusion that ID cards are not only inevitable but fundamentally desirable. In the Home Secretary's introduction to the White Paper, which I am sure hon. Members have read carefully, he says:
"There are strongly held views on all sides of the debate on identity or entitlement cards. Although many people have settled views on the principle of whether or not they favour them, I think it is important to rehearse all the pros and cons of a scheme even if this is seen as going over old ground."
I now have a settled view, as do my constituents. I responded to the Home Secretary's encouragement for us to consult widely on the White Paper in our constituencies. If it will warm the cockles of the Minister's heart, I am more than happy to read out the results that I obtained from the consultation in my constituency. People had to take the trouble of returning a reply-paid form. I am sure that the process was not scientific, but the results are interesting.
Three questions were asked. The first asked people whether they agreed or disagreed that:
"ID Cards are an abuse of human rights; and invasion of privacy and their introduction should be opposed."
Some 4 per cent. agreed; 89 per cent. disagreed. The second said:
"In this age of computers and credit cards, big business and other organizations already hold a huge amount of personal information and ID cards would not reduce a citizens right to privacy."
Some 88 per cent. agreed; 6 per cent. disagreed.
The third question was the inevitable one asked in any pub or club, or at the many doors on which many of us spend our Sundays knocking. It stated:
"Only people with something to hide have anything to fear from ID Cards."
304WH
Unsurprisingly, 95 per cent. were in favour; 3 per cent. disagreed. So my constituents have a settled view on ID cards.
I am also attracted to the notion of entitlement cards, although I would go much further. I was chairman of the leisure committee on Reading borough council and, as such, the politician who introduced the first entitlement card in Reading since 1952. We had a real problem with people from outside our borough using leisure facilities that were paid for by the council taxpayers of Reading, so I introduced a passport-to-leisure system. People had to prove that they were council taxpayers in Reading to qualify for preferential bookings and discount schemes. Some 40,000 people registered for the scheme. There was no customer resistance at all.
Mr. Gerrard: My hon. Friend has just quoted an interesting statistic. What checks were carried out to determine how many of the 40,000 were fake?
Mr. Salter: Nineteen eighty-six was a long time ago. I am certainly aware that proof of residence was required. Of course, there was a much more serious point, about which I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree, which was that it was particularly demeaning for unemployed people to have to turn up in front of a lot of other people with their UB4Os to get a free swim. The advantage of a card system was that it gave people a sense of dignity and hid the fact that they were unemployed from public view. There were many aspects of the approach that my hon. Friend could agree with.
The history of ID cards in this country is chequered. They were introduced in the National Registration Act 1915, when there was a requirement for people aged between 15 and 65 to hold a card. They were reintroduced in 1939 and functioned much as a "producer" does now; a person did not have to carry documents, but if they were caught without documents by a police officer they had to produce them within 48 hours.
The cards continued into the post-war period. They were a requirement to qualify for ration books. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) describes himself as a Bevanite—I assume that he means Aneurin Bevan—and, interestingly, it was Aneurin Bevan who famously said in 1947 that the ID card had become "almost a popular document". There are probably those who still regret that the requirement for ID cards came to an end in 1952.
One of the more bizarre points made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) was about ID cards heralding a repressive regime, rivalled only by that of Saddam Hussein. I understand that Sweden is one of the most progressive states in Europe, and it is about to introduce compulsory ID cards. Identity cards exist in one form or another in 11 EU states. None of those states has a tremendous history of repression. Cards are

305WH
compulsory in Spain, Greece, Germany and Belgium. Interestingly, in nine of the 11 EU states with identity cards, the cost is nominal.
David Winnick rose—
Mr. Gerrard rose—
Mr. Salter: I give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Which hon. Member is the hon. Gentleman giving way to?
Mr. Salter: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I only saw my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North.
David Winnick: I am aware that my hon. Friend was not around at the time of the decision to abolish ID cards in 1952, but am Ito take it from his comments that he thinks it was wrong?
Mr. Salter: No, not at all. I only said that some would regret their passing. However, life has moved on.
Mr. Gerrard: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Salter: No; I will make headway if I can.
Five benefits would immediately flow from the proper introduction of ID cards. There has been much talk about the fact that our asylum and immigration system and our borders are not as secure as one would like; nor is the system as valid as one would want. My area is not known for intensive farming, but only the other week my local paper reported that a double-decker bus had crashed, and about 40 people were seen scampering into the fields. The police arrested 17 Polish nationals, all of whom had been working in this country for a year without any documentation. That leads to the conclusion that 23 have disappeared into the system; they are presumably illegally working elsewhere and probably being appallingly exploited by unscrupulous employers.
We know that a huge amount of fraud goes on. The consultation documents suggest a sum of £1.3 billion per annum for ID fraud. We know that we have pitiful outward border controls. An exchange that took place in the Home Affairs Committee led to The Times reporting on 22 October:
"The Home Office has deported only one of 63 Chinese nationals found working illegally in the summer".
The report continued:
"Figures given to the committee show that of the 63 Chinese nationals found in the raids, four were failed asylum-seekers who should not have been in the country, 16 were asylum applicants, who are banned from working, and 10 had committed other immigration offences and should not have been working."
There is an extensive, illegal black economy in operation even in relatively prosperous parts of our nation. The introduction of ID cards would be a useful control mechanism, not just against people who should no longer be in this country, but against those who seek to exploit the misery of asylum and refugee status.
Brian White: Does my hon. Friend accept that if ID cards were introduced, the organised criminals who bring such people in would provide them with fake ID?
Mr. Salter: I shall touch on that point shortly.
I do not want to dwell on health tourism, but we undoubtedly have failings and weak flanks in our NHS controls. I would like to touch on a far more friendly matter, and that is convenience. I am not a great man for carrying a huge amount of plastic, but I have just emptied the contents of my wallet and I see 16 different cards. First and most important is my Labour party membership card, followed by my trade union cards. Also, even in Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities one needs an ID card to get into the council offices. I would be interested to see what the Liberal Democrats make of that. We then go from the important, with a blood donor card, to the Caravan Club, an organisation that I commend to hon. Members. I envisage, in my lifetime, that an awful lot of the plastic that we carry will be rolled up, using the advantages of new technology, into one or two simple cards. That would be a lot easier for us all. I understand from the White Paper that some 137 million plastic cards are in circulation in one form or another.
I have categorised the objections to the proposals. Some people object on the grounds of civil liberties. I respect that view. However, with the amount of information that corporate Britain holds on us as citizens, for every time we use a credit card or a debit card, I wonder what is wrong with a democratically elected progressive state holding a portion of that information.
Mr. Paice: Can I confirm that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that an ID card will contain all the information that he has arrayed in front of him on all those cards? Does he believe the membership of those different clubs and organisations, his entitlement to enter Reading borough council offices and the rest will all be on that card? I do not see where his argument will take us, if not there.
Mr. Salter: I can envisage a time in my life when it will be convenient to amalgamate some of the information that we now carry on a lot of separate cards. I do not envisage that, in my lifetime, the Caravan Club, the National Trust or Johnson's dry-cleaning will appear on a national ID card.
I understand some of the objections to the introduction of an ID card scheme on the grounds of cost. However, we should weigh that against the cost of an asylum system that does not work, a benefits system that is subject to fraud and an ID system that is at least questionable.
The last objection to ID cards is that they could be forged. However, a lot of things could be forged. If we decide not introduce a system of ID cards because of potential forgery—and biometric technology makes that increasingly unlikely—why do we bother with driving licences, passports and all other documentation? Of course people will try to find a way around the system. On balance, if ID cards help the police and Customs, reassure the public and make us feel more secure, that is a price worth paying.
Far more significant than that, however, is that the real threats to the country arise from issues such as social cohesion, race relations, the rise of far-right, racist and fascist groupings and organised crime, particularly

307WH
gun crime, which I have seen in the past few days on the streets of my constituency, and its connection to hard drugs, the smuggling of drugs and people, and prostitution. Those are the real threats to our civil liberties. If an ID card can deal with 5 or 10 per cent. of those threats it is a price worth paying.
2.53 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: As I said in Home Office questions, I think that I am one of the few people who still has an ID card. I was issued with one 10 days after I was born in 1942, and I still have it. It has little rubber stamps on it, from when it was inspected.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If it is any compensation, I think that there are probably three of us here.
Mr. Gerrard: Right. One of the difficulties in debating an ID card system is that we need to know what we are actually discussing, because the consultation paper opened up a range of options. In his response to that consultation paper, the Information Commissioner stated:
"I face a real difficulty in knowing what the scheme that is being proposed really amounts to"
because of the diverse range of options that have been proposed, and because the consultation paper asked for more suggestions. The Information Commissioner was saying, "I've got a real problem here knowing what I should be responding to," and that, before the Government go any further, they should produce something more focused and clear.
It is obvious from the debate so far that everyone assumes that the main purpose of ID cards is to deal with problems such as fraud, illegal working, and illegal immigration. Terrorism has been mentioned, but I do not think that the Government consultation paper suggested that ID cards could be used to address terrorism.
Three questions should be asked, all of which have been raised in the debate. Would ID cards work? Even if they were to work, would they be the best way to deal with the problems mentioned? Would they he acceptable? People may have issues with showing the cards. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) said, there is a different culture in this country about how to respond to the police when asked to produce papers than in those European countries in which such practices have been common for some time.
Another issue that has been discussed is that of illegal working. It is a criminal offence for an employer to employ someone whom they know is not entitled to work, but that does not stop them from doing it. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), mentioned an incident involving a busload of people going to work illegally. I do not believe that their employer did not know that they were working illegally. Of course he knew. If an employer is prepared to break the law by not bothering to check whether someone can produce a piece of paper that states that he is entitled to work, would that employer
308WH
ask to see an ID card? Of course he would not. Those employers who avoid making checks are the same type of people who are involved in large-scale fraudulent employment of illegal workers. I doubt whether ID cards would make any difference.
If we want to catch the employers who are illegally employing people, we should look at tax returns, VAT returns and national insurance claims. One can bet one's life that they will not be making those returns properly. I have mentioned that before in debates on this issue. We should remember that Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion. There is more than one way of getting at those who are involved in illegal employment.
As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) pointed out, benefit fraud is more often about the misrepresentation of circumstances than the misrepresentation of identity. The police do not usually have a problem identifying who someone is. They have much more of a problem finding the evidence to tie them to the crime.
My main point is about how the system would be established. Without a national database, an ID card system would be doomed to failure. It would be a gift to fraudsters if ID cards were to become the ultimate proof of identity, as they might, and we did not have secure systems from the start. We know that systems such as those used by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the UK Passport Service are not secure. There are plenty of fake driving licences around. In the past month, I have dealt with three cases in which people were using fake driving licences in my constituents' names. That is probably happening across the country, because DVLA and passport records were not designed to establish identity. If we build on those databases, we will construct a system that is full of flaws from day one.
If we were to opt for biometrics based on those systems, we would still have a problem. Even if I produce a card with my iris data or my fingerprints, it proves only that I am the person whose personal data is on the card. It does not prove that I am who I say I am. It cannot do that unless we start with a secure database, but that has enormous cost and time implications, and it would affect how such a system was constructed and therefore how acceptable people would find it. Card readers would need to be connected to the database in hospitals, benefit offices and so on—an immense infrastructure would be needed.
Finally, I come to acceptability. I have heard many times before the argument that we are all used to carrying bits of plastic, but that is not so. For instance, only 50 per cent. of the population has a credit card. Even now, many people do not carry plastic. Those who are least likely to do so are to be found in the most deprived and marginalised communities, and they will become targets if they do not have ID cards.
I am not convinced that those who say, "I have nothing to fear. I wouldn't mind. I carry plastic anyway," would feel the same if they were stopped in the street or on arrival at hospital and asked, "Where is your ID card?" They would say, "Why me? Why are you questioning me? I have nothing to hide. I am innocent. I am a respectable person." People would not take it kindly.

309WH
I return to the Information Commissioner's response, which is worth listening to. He said:
"I am concerned that although there may be plausible arguments made for the introduction of an entitlement card scheme in the short term there is the potential for function creep as administrative and political priorities change or even just to maximise the use of a costly infrastructure."
In other words, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, there is not much doubt that if a scheme were introduced that, on paper, was voluntary, it would be compulsory within 10 years and people would be asked to carry their cards with them wherever they went. Whatever the Government may say—I do not disbelieve them—it does not bind future Governments. That is one of the greatest dangers.
Brian White: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Member was intervening. I am sorry, but it is time to start the winding-up speeches. I call the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten).
3.2 pm
Mr. Mark Oaten: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This has been an excellent debate. I am genuinely disappointed that we cannot hear from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). I am almost tempted to support the idea of ID legislation being mentioned in the Queen's Speech so that we can continue the debate and go on to defeat the measure. The arguments put forward today have been compelling.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on introducing the subject. His arguments about a written constitution were excellent, and I entirely agree about the difficulties of previous attempts to administer such changes, particularly the chaos that we had with passports a couple of years ago. I, too, was in the ridiculous and embarrassing situation of having my bank manager ask for my passport for identification, despite the fact that we have known each other since I was 18—that was 20 years ago. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some excellent examples.
I agreed entirely with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), who said that if he were convinced that the system would significantly help to deal with terrorism, he would be prepared to set aside some of his concerns. That is exactly where I come from, but neither of us is convinced. His example on Northern Ireland was a point well made.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and I share common ground on the libertarian issue. I enjoyed his remarks about the need for a balance between the state and the individual, which were very well made. His arguments about the impact on terrorism carried even more weight, given his constituency.
I was disappointed in the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). As a child of the '60s, he is normally quite liberal. I can put his viewpoint down only to the
310WH
fact that his eyesight is failing. Now that he has glasses, he might be able to look again at some of the issues. I congratulate him on having his shirts and suits dry-cleaned for the rest of the year, given the number of plugs that he has given to Johnson's dry-cleaning.
Finally, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) was right to talk about cultural differences. I welcome the fact that the relationship between the police and an individual in this country differs from the culture of fear that one sees in other parts of the world. His points about illegal working were spot on. If the argument for ID cards relies on an undercurrent feeling that things operate better elsewhere and that having an ID card will suddenly achieve that for us, it is nonsense.
I shall be brief, because we all want to hear from the Minister and the Conservative party. I have shifted my view. I was one of the rare Liberal Democrats who thought that it might be possible to make a case for ID cards along the lines of "What have you got to hide?". However, I have looked, listened and learned, and I have changed my view. I have concluded that we need to understand why the Government would want to introduce them. What is the purpose? Is it security, immigration or entitlement? I conclude that the reason is none of those, but that a focus group or some opinion polling has suggested that such a policy might sound tough and macho. The Government have not set out a genuine reason for it.
Let us consider some of the arguments. First, we have heard about the 9-11 terrorists—cards did not stop terrorism. One can almost gain a false sense of security by assuming that having a card in place can tackle terrorism. We have also heard arguments about the difficulties with rip-offs. The points have been well made.
On the issue of criminals and benefit fraud, surely the main problem for the police is not identifying the criminals, but catching them in the first place. If we were to spend the amount of money on identity issues that is being mentioned, we could start by giving the police a lot more technology with which to do their current job—fingerprint identification and such issues would be a good starting point and might make more practical difference than the introduction of ID cards. My understanding about benefit fraud is that the main problem is not the question of identity but that of individuals who misrepresent what they are claiming the money for.
Brian White: The hon. Gentleman mentions the fingerprint project. Does that not highlight the difficulties, in that if we wished to introduce one, its scale would be such that, given the history of projects to do with national fingerprinting that still have not been rolled out fully, the time that it would take to introduce a computer system would cause problems?
Mr. Oaten: We agree on that. According to the latest figures, there are only 176 automated fingerprint identification systems in the country. What hope have we of getting an ID card set up and running?
On cost, moving towards a nanny state system and then charging people £40 could well shift the opinion polls and the views of individuals, and given our ability to deliver the system, that could make the dome look

311WH
like a tea party. I can envisage the headlines, the difficulties and the dangers involved. The project will cost a lot of money, and Governments—regardless of party—do not have a good track record when it comes to technology.
Who should hold the card at any given time? We would have difficulties, for example, with EU nationals who were in this country to work and people here on holiday. That could open a loophole that might be used by those who wanted to exploit the system. We could even have the perverse situation in which the people of this country who wanted jobs had to show an ID card whereas EU nationals did not.
If entitlement were the Government's only intention, and if I could be convinced that we would benefit in our daily lives—the hon. Member for Reading, West with all his different cards, and the rest of us with access to health services, benefits and going into post offices—I might see some merit in considering the system. However, if they were to introduce it, the only result would be an enormous burden for business. Government would impose on our public services a great deal of technology—not just that required to produce cards for so many people, but that needed to read them at local hospitals, in post offices and at different places.
Mr. Thomas: That is a point that we have not considered so far. Entitlement to health services is one of the Government's crucial arguments. Of all the services, the health service is the least automated, the one with the fewest records available in a digital format and the least prepared to take the system on board. Surely, on top of the existing crisis, the project would place an immeasurable burden on the health service.
Mr. Oaten: The point is well made. Coping with the production of some 60 million cards is one thing, but providing receiving equipment to do anything with them up and down the country, once we have produced them centrally, is another, and I just cannot see it happening. I do not understand what the entitlement will be if the idea is that if one goes into an accident and emergency department in a rush, one has to have a card and put it through a system. I cannot see what advantage that will bring.
I have changed my view. I had felt that if there was a compelling case I would be prepared to set aside some of my instinctive civil liberty and libertarian concerns, but there is no compelling case. A range of issues has been raised, which, in my judgment, mean that the Government should not introduce the cards. They should heed the consultation and listen to Labour Members and members of the Cabinet, and they should not proceed with this policy. It would be unpopular in the country and unworkable.
3.10 pm
Mr. James Paice: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing the debate. I share the view of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) that we could, and hopefully will, debate the matter for much longer. We may well then come to the conclusion that he wants.
312WH
Much of the debate is focused on liberty and civil liberties. The one aspect on which I dissent from the view of the hon. Member for Ceredigion is his point that this is a particularly apposite week for the debate because we are remembering 11 November and the sacrifice that people made for freedom. I think that that generation is generally the most supportive of introducing identity cards. That is not to say that I am swayed by that argument, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's argument flowed. There is much support for ID cards among the general public, particularly the older generation—of which, I hasten to add, I am not quite a member. There is also a lack of understanding of some of the technological and logistical issues to which several hon. Members have referred. I shall not spend much time discussing liberty, although that is not in any way to underestimate it.
I must look at what is happening elsewhere. Much mention has been made of other countries in Europe, and valid arguments have been made on both sides of the debate. It is interesting to know that of all the 11 countries in the EU that have an ID card, only Belgium uses any form of biometric information, which is the fingerprint system. The only three countries in the world to have the more comprehensive form of biometrics that we believe the Government envisages are Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore. Despite being chairman of the all-party group on Singapore, I would not put forward any of those three as being among the most libertarian regimes in the world.
It is interesting that Australia, which has robust anti-immigration and asylum measures—the Minister is no doubt aware of them—has rejected the idea of ID cards being part of that system. Nevertheless, ID cards have some important protagonists, including the Police Federation, for which I have immense admiration, which supports the idea of a mandatory system of ID cards.
That brings me to the point that the hon. Member for Winchester just raised: what is the scheme for? What are we trying to achieve? Is this an anti-crime measure, aimed at trying to identify criminals going about their business so that they can be apprehended more quickly? Are we trying to deal with illegal immigration and asylum, or just with entitlement to public services? If we are looking at entitlement—the Government use that word, so let us assume that that is what they are considering—the need to be fraud and forgery-proof is critical. There is a huge industry out there forging all sorts of documents. In London and elsewhere, one can pick up a forged passport, a driving licence and a social security number for a couple of hundred pounds. All those means of ID are available, so to pretend that an ID card would not be equally forgeable is nonsense, unless we used biometric information. Even then, I would not be entirely convinced, although I am prepared to be persuaded that iris recognition, at least, is fraud-proof.
We then come, however, to the question raised by the hon. Member for Winchester. It is no use having a card with a unique number and a magnetic strip, or whatever means is used for Iris memorisation, if the place that a person has gone to has no means of checking their iris to see whether the person holding the card is the person on it. There would have to be an iris reader in every school,

313WH
every library, every GP's surgery and, because of home visits, every GP's car and every accident and emergency department—the whole works. It is foolish to believe that such an array of technology could be rolled out in the foreseeable future.
Those examples concern public services, but we should consider banks, which are, of course, private institutions. This afternoon, there has been much discussion about the need for identification in banks, building societies and other financial institutions. Can such institutions install card readers and will they be allowed to do so? If the information concerns only iris recognition—leaving aside the question whether the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) is a member of his local Labour party, whether he is entitled to enter Reading borough council offices or whether he is allowed to have his suits dry cleaned—it will be pointless unless the location in which people are trying to use their cards has facilities for reading them.
Setting aside the simple issues of false identity and forgery, I shall turn to crime prevention. The Police Federation obviously believes that police officers should be able to identify people by checking their cards. However, the Government's repeated assertion that it will not be compulsory to carry an ID card nullifies any crime prevention benefit that the scheme might otherwise have. Imagine that a police officer stops someone and asks them who they are. The person replies, "I am John Smith". The officer asks, "Have you got your identity card?", and the person replies, "No. I do not have to carry it." The officer says, "Will you present it at a police station next week?" How can the officer know who has failed to turn up at the police station the following week if the person who was stopped gave a false identity? The situation is absurd. The job should be done properly by making it compulsory to carry an ID card, or the logic behind the introduction of ID cards breaks down entirely.
Let us examine the consequences of not having an ID card, even if it is only for entitlement. What happens when someone who does not have a card turns up at an A and E department? Will they be refused treatment? Will a GP or ambulance refuse to treat someone because they do not have a card?
Mr. Oaten rose—
Mr. Paice: I would like to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I am pressed for time.
What about housing? Will homelessness legislation apply to somebody who has not got a card? There are so many issues.
On illegal immigrants, I wholly condemn the bad practice and worse of gangmasters, examples of which have been mentioned by other Members. Gangmasters operate in my constituency—I hasten to add that all those of whom I am aware are entirely legitimate and operate properly. However, some gangmasters are criminals. In many cases, gangmasters are involved in big business. They will be able to access forgery systems to provide the necessary information.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that the majority of illegal immigrants who come into this country do so with the help, connivance and conspiracy of
314WH
professional people traffickers. Those organisations will have access to the necessary technology to provide a good forged identity unless we use biometric information. Certainly, the idea of some sort of glorified driving licence is wide open to abuse.
As of next summer, the citizens of 25 different countries will be able to move freely within this country. It seems absurd that our residents might be expected to have an ID card while those of other countries are not. It has been suggested that the ID card will cost £40 per head, although it will be issued free to asylum seekers. How will that help to advance race relations or multiculturalism?
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) raised the issue of a database, and he was wise to do so. I, too, take the view that in a system of ID cards that include biometric information, there must be a central database if the system is to work. A database is not essential to start with, but it is a logical progression. That takes us into the issue of the other information that may be on the database. A national DNA database has its advocates, although I am not one of them. There is also the question of who should be able to access that information.
Like the hon. Member for Winchester, I have become ever more sceptical the more that I have studied ID or entitlement cards. The Government have some huge questions to answer if they intend to proceed any further with this. What are the cards for? Will the system be secure and forgery-proof? Who will have access to the information that may be contained in the system, however much or little of it there may be? What will the cost be? What will happen to the refuseniks who will not carry a card? Without all those answers, and without a clear understanding of how the system will operate, I remain extremely sceptical, as does the Opposition. We are not at all convinced that the Government have thought the idea through.
3.20 pm
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): We have had an excellent debate and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and all Members who have contributed. Although it is clear that there is a wide range of views, right across the party, it is right that that is so, if the Government proceed on these lines. I appreciate the difficulty caused for Members by the fact that there is no specific proposal on the table—they know why. It is clear that there is a body of opinion, which varies in the degree to which it is well informed, to be expressed if the Government does propose a specific scheme. During any subsequent debates, there will no doubt be a great deal of interest and enthusiasm for grappling with some of the difficult issues involved.
I am not in a position today to give details or to make any announcement. Members know that the Cabinet is discussing the matter, and proposals will be made in due course. Although I will try to deal with some of the questions, one of the most helpful contributions that I can make in the short time available is to set out clearly for Members the developments in the use of biometrics and security of identity that will take place anyway. They are all in the public domain, but they may not have

315WH
been set out together. Members' views on the desirability of ID cards should perhaps properly be informed by the context of what will happen anyway, both internationally and domestically.
We are not in the same position that we were 50 years ago. In today's world, correct identification has become imperative in a way that we could not have foreseen. We face new threats and increases in the scale and sophistication of illegal immigration, organised crime and terrorism, but there are also new opportunities and new improvements in the technology of biometrics. Crucially, such improvements offer the opportunity to link an identity record to an individual with a high level of security. That record can then be used to verify a person's identity and immigration status, show entitlement to work and do some of the other things on which Members have touched.
First, Members need to know that international developments will soon require us to upgrade the security of all our identity documents. The United States is requiring countries that wish to continue in the visa waiver scheme, in which we are included, to include biometric information in passports. Secondly, the European Commission is looking for a decision on including finger scans biometric information on EU common format visas. We must choose between continuing to respond in a piecemeal fashion to some of those external developments and playing a leading role in shaping the way the world responds to the challenge of secure identification in a changing world. Those developments will take place internationally and in the UK.
Thirdly, in May this year. the International Civil Aviation Organisation adopted a global harmonised blueprint for biometric information in passports and other travel documents. The agreed ICAO standard is the inclusion of a mandatory facial image biometric in a contact-less chip—the document would be placed on a reader—with the option of including a secondary biometric finger scan or iris scan in the future.
The 188 ICAO contracting states are now considering adopting that standard in their travel documents. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) mentioned, Australia looks like being the first to issue passports to that new standard, followed by New Zealand and the United States.
Although biometric documents are being introduced internationally, in the UK the Passport Agency has decided to include a facial image biometric on passports from 2005, with an initial pilot to develop that process. There are also plans for biometrically secure driving licences. We are piloting the use of finger scan biometrics in Sri Lanka for UK visas and extending iris scanning for many secure foreign visitors to allow fast-track immigration clearance.
Several international and UK developments are inevitable, and they include developing biometrics to secure someone's identity to a much higher level of assurance. Such developments will incur costs to individuals for a passport with a much higher degree of security and to the Government for the investment required to develop the technology. A lengthy time scale will be required for their implementation.
316WH
Is it sensible to make the investment in money, technology, time and commitment to secure developments that would take us to the point of an ID card system, but to have none of the additional benefits that an ID card system would bring?
Mr. Oaten: Will the Minister give way?
Beverley Hughes: I will, with reluctance, because many Members want to question me.
Mr. Oaten: The Minister gave the example of the technology available, but is she able to provide her own view on ID cards?
Beverley Hughes: I am personally convinced that ID cards are indispensable in addressing some of the issues touched on by Members, some of whom have been sceptical about the contribution that ID cards can make. They are not a panacea, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) said, but they are vital to progress on some of the serious issues faced by the UK and every country in the modern world.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) has graphically made clear, we are a nation of cardholders. People are used to carrying cards, and the results of our consultation process were very similar to those of consultation under the last Conservative Government, who proposed a voluntary scheme that would have been little more than a glorified driving licence.
An ID card scheme would give us an important means of responding to some of the external threats that we face, within the broader strategy of tackling illegal immigration and illegal working. ID cards could reduce identity fraud and sift out those not entitled to services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who talked about illegal working, must understand, as I am sure he does, that the difficulty is that there is no single document establishing an entitlement to work. The national insurance number does not do that; it is, and always has been, issued to people who do not have an entitlement to work. Employers have a statutory defence against prosecution if they can show that they have looked at a document. There is no single secure document so most prosecutions fail.
Terrorists also use false identities. Although I would not begin to claim that ID cards are a panacea in the fight against terrorism, they are an extremely important weapon, given that terrorists and organised criminals use multiple identities.
In the last few seconds available to me, I would like to make it clear that there would be a national register to underpin such a card scheme. Parliament would have to debate the questions about the information that would go on the card, the chips and the database. I recognise that if we were to go ahead with the scheme it would be a major undertaking, which would take six to 10 years. That is why we need to debate it now, and we need to consider not only whether we need an ID card system now, but whether we shall need one in 10 years' time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Could I ask hon. Members not wishing to stay for the next debate to leave quickly and quietly? It is likely that a Division will occur during that debate, so I shall set out my intentions now. There is the possibility of two Divisions; there may only be one. If there is one Division, we shall suspend for 15 minutes. If there are two Divisions, we shall suspend for half an hour.

Police Funding (Dorset)
3.30 pm
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Dorset police covers an area of over 1,000 square miles and serves a population of nearly 700,000. Half of the populations live in the conurbation of Poole and Bournemouth, and the remaining 50 per cent. of the constituency is predominantly rural in character; a very good mix. The specific features of the county are important in relation to how the police service is delivered, and the way in which it is financed. Dorset is an area with high house prices—it is such a lovely place to live—but where wages are relatively low. That results in Dorset not qualifying for the area cost adjustment, but presents major problems for recruitment and retention of staff throughout the public sector.
Dorset has almost 50 per cent. more residents over the age of 65 than the national average would predict, resulting in a high proportion of households on fixed or restricted incomes being faced with increasing tax demands to maintain the same level of service. Feelings are running very high in the county and I am sure that high overall council tax increases will provoke widespread demonstrations next year.
Within the conurbation of Poole and Bournemouth a further difficulty arises. Bournemouth is increasingly becoming a major south coast venue, attracting a large influx of nighttime visitors. It now has in excess of 30,000 licensed drinking spaces available each night, creating operational policing pressures more akin to those in metropolitan areas. There is a reflection within the formula to take account of visitors, but it assumes that the visitors share the same characteristics as the resident population. That is not the case. The fact that my daughter and her friends come down from London possibly contributes to that view, but Bournemouth is a very attractive place to come for the weekend.
Despite the diverse micro-economy and the pressures that brings, Dorset police prides itself on being innovative and providing a high-quality and efficient service to the people of Dorset. There are many ways in which that is clearly demonstrated, not least in the inspection process by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which regularly cites Dorset as an example of good practice. The annual achievement of 2 per cent. efficiency gains symbolises the rigorous procedures the force employs in all its activities and its own desire continually to improve.
More than 90 per cent. of the force's officers work directly on front-line policing. It has improved and exceeded its targets in responding to emergency calls for assistance from the public in both rural and urban areas, but—here is the big but—Dorset police force is the sixth lowest spending police force in the country yet it receives the second lowest amount of Government support. Despite its low expenditure the effect of the low funding results in the residents of Dorset having to pay the fourth highest council tax per head in the country.
I am sure that the Minister will appreciate the mixed messages that the residents of Dorset are receiving. We have a highly efficient and effective police force within the existing funding constraints, but we are faced with one of the highest taxes in the country. That makes local

319WH
accountability very difficult. When people are asked to pay more, they naturally ask, "Why don't I ever see a police officer on the beat?"
To be fair, Dorset police now has 1,422 police officers, an increase of 10 per cent. over the last 10 years. That is very good news. However, a local capability assessment has identified a shortfall of officers of approximately 200. I frequently request extra support in local communities to tackle low-level antisocial behaviour. As Dorset is a relatively safe place, much greater use could be made of community support officers and accredited safety officers, whose mere presence would contribute towards people feeling safer. Community support officers are employed in the west of the county only and funding is inadequate to expand the scheme. There are just six CSOs in Dorset. Neighbourhood warden schemes financed by the Government are very limited in number and funding has not been secured for the future.
The Dorset police force prides itself on its consistent and positive approach to achieving national targets and, through its extensive programme of consultation, to accommodating local requirements. However, the situation is becoming increasingly difficult and could lead to significant issues for members of the police authority who must determine how to address the future.
Local consultation has demonstrated strong support for the provision of community beat officers and a desire that such individuals should not be abstracted to other activities, a feeling that is shared across the country. However, the difficulty faced by the force is that with insufficient resources and manpower it cannot fulfil those local priorities as well as achieve all the national targets; hence, the local dissatisfaction that I mentioned earlier. I fear that matters will get worse and hope that the Minister will provide some reassurance this afternoon.
Changes in the Government grant last year led to a reduction in central funding. Dorset received the minimum increase, which was wholly inadequate to meet the pressures of police reform, pensions and increased national insurance.
Mr. Robert Syms: May I assure the hon. Lady that all her Dorset colleagues, irrespective of politics, fully support the powerful case that she is making for our constituents?
Mrs. Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support.
The result of all the pressures was a double figure increase in council tax last year just to maintain existing services. If the authority were to cut its budget to keep to an inflation-only increase next year, it could face a cut in officer numbers of more than 100, which represents 7 per cent. of the force establishment. Dorset residents want more police, not fewer, and they want a reduction in crime and antisocial behaviour. To maintain the present service, Dorset faces a funding gap of £6.5 million on a budget of nearly £100 million. Without a significant increase in central support, that would result in a council tax increase of more than 20 per cent. Dorset residents are reaching the point where they are not prepared to pay more for less.
320WH
As one of the smaller forces in the country, Dorset police is able to react swiftly, re-deploy resources efficiently and to take on and implement innovative solutions that can then be used as an example to the rest of the country. However, as a small force, it finds itself unduly exposed to the current unique funding mechanism for police pensions. A move to direct national funding could address concerns about the current balance of funding review. That would make an enormous difference, particularly for a small authority. Such a move would also produce efficiency savings in administration and reduce perversities in the movement of officers between forces; another issue for those who live in a very nice part of the country, as the Minister will recognise. The public would then see that they were paying for the current service and not the pensions of former officers.
I would not want to see the Dorset police authority, which is a smaller authority, abolished. I truly believe in local policing. It is right to deal with some matters nationally, and the continued drive by the Home Office to identify and deliver national solutions to police information requirements through the identification and procurement of IT systems is recognised as the right way forward for the police service. However, the ability to take on national systems becomes increasingly difficult when the cost must be met by local taxpayers.
Local consultation has identified a specific problem in Dorset and I suspect that the Minister has received quite a lot of representations in relation to the road safety camera project. I wholeheartedly support road safety, speed reduction and saving lives. However, at a local level there is great opposition to the scheme because, according to the letters that I receive, the cameras are on roads that are safe. Opposition is difficult to deflect because the public does not entirely know how the scheme is funded. In the current year, the Dorset road safety camera project will return more than £1 million to the Treasury, money that could and should be invested in local initiatives to improve road safety in its widest context. I applaud the project, but the financing should be managed to support Dorset.
Looking to the future, Dorset pledges to work with the region, the country and the Home Office to ensure that it delivers the national and local agenda. Dorset welcomes initiatives and flexibility within the financial framework. The authority welcomes the prudential code on capital because it will enable better and more strategic long-term planning of both its capital assets and its long-term capital plan. However, even within that new flexibility there has been no announcement to the Dorset police authority on how future capital support will be provided under the new system.
The application of the cost floor has been essential for Dorset to continue to maintain its current level of service but, as yet, there is no indication of what that floor will be in future years or what tapering may be applied to it, thus creating great difficulties in medium-term planning given the tightness of funds in Dorset.
A great deal of work is being undertaken nationally by the police service and by the Government, which will address some of my concerns. However, to meet the immediate needs of Dorset, I should like some assurance on the following points. First, will the total level of Government support to cover general, specific and capital grant be maintained with at least an inflationary

321WH
increase next year? Secondly, could the rules relating to the road safety camera project be relaxed to enable a greater proportion of the income to be invested locally in sensible schemes? Thirdly, will there be a review of future funding to address the issue of police pensions and can we expect some answers on that shortly? Fourthly, will the continued drive to national information systems be fully funded?
Fifthly—this is very important for Dorset—will the rural police grant be continued? Dorset residents were alarmed to read in the The Sunday Times last week:
"The redistribution of police money marks part of a wider government effort quietly to move central government resources away from wealthier, predominantly southern areas to poorer neighbourhoods in northern England, Wales and Scotland."
I do not wish to deprive other areas of funding, but not at a cost to Dorset. Will the Minister comment on the truth of that statement in The Sunday Times?.
This year all police authorities seem to have had concerns about the forthcoming financial settlement, but Dorset—with its historically low funding and a shortage of money to deliver local policing priorities—is, justifiably, particularly worried about the future. Residents of Dorset are reaching the point where they are not prepared to pay more for less. What reassurance can the Minister give to the Dorset police authority and the residents of Dorset on the issues that I have raised this afternoon?
3.44 pm
The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on obtaining this important debate on police funding for Dorset. She has made some important representations and I hope that I can reassure her on some of the points that she has raised. However, I have to be a little tantalising, because later this month I shall make an announcement on the 2004–05 provisional police funding settlement. I am not in a position to go into a lot of detail today, but I hope that I can give the hon. Lady a broad flavour of what the factors will be in preparing the settlement.
There are currently inescapable pressures on precepts. I receive representations from a range of police authorities that are concerned about the effects on their communities. They are also concerned about the possibility of police authority capping, so the Home Secretary has been keen to emphasise that we want authorities to act responsibly when they set their budgets. We also want them to lock in some of the improvements that they have made in recent years, because we are delighted that authorities have been prepared to go that extra mile and get extra resources to extra officers.
Communities appreciate the higher visibility policing that we have now, but authorities must make well-justified cases for any improvements to their communities and ensure that they have broad public support for the budgets that they set. I remind the hon. Lady that in the last two years authorities have set budgets well in excess of what they have needed to stand
322WH
still. We are pleased about that, because it has meant more resources going to the police service. There has been considerable growth out there in police authorities over the last few years, with central Government expenditure increasing by 30 per cent. to support it.
Mrs. Brooke: Even though the Minister cannot say anything precisely about the settlement, will she comment on whether there will be capping on the police part of the council tax?
Ms Blears: As the hon. Lady knows, the question of whether local authorities will be capped is a matter for my colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, not the Home Office. I am sure that she also knows that discussions are taking place to ensure that we reach a balanced position on local authorities generally and on the pressures on police authorities. Any decisions on capping, however, are a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which has been clear that there will certainly not be universal capping but that a close eye will be kept on the increases.
Last year's increases in some places—not the hon. Lady's constituency—were in the order of 70 per cent. and 75 per cent., which are not sustainable in the longer-term. Dorset police, however, increased its budget last year to £95.6 million, which was an increase of £7.7 million, or 8.8 per cent., which was broadly in line with police authorities generally. The precept was increased by 19.2 per cent., which sounds like a large percentage increase but was actually 38p a week; we must get things in perspective. Although the percentages are large, the sums themselves are fairly modest and appropriate to the improvements that people have seen in policing on their streets.
3.47 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.3 pm
On resuming—
Ms Blears: I am delighted to resume the debate. I was just about to outline Dorset's funding and budget, but first I wanted to say a word about the funding formula. The formula was updated last year and the new formula had buy-in and agreement from all parties in the tripartite structure for policing. I note what the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said about issues still being outstanding. There is scope for improvement in the formula but a period of stability this year is probably in our best interests. In future we will examine with the policing community how we can best develop grant mechanisms to meet the needs of contemporary policing. This is an ongoing debate. I want to ensure that the new funding formula arrangements support the reform and modernisation process on which we have embarked and which are moving on apace.
The hon. Lady also mentioned specific grants. Dorset continues to benefit from our targeted initiatives. It received a further £2.31 million from the crime fighting fund, £0.16 million for Airwave and £0.44 million from the rural policing fund. The authority also receives

323WH
£470,000 for basic command unit funding; £490,000 for DNA—for forensic sciences; and £380,000 in special priority payments.
There has been some concern among police authorities about the amount of grant provided in that specific way. However, virtually all the specific grants are for things that the police service has told us that it wants to see happen. In the past, money has been set aside to improve policing. Under the previous Conservative Administration, money was provided for an extra 5,000 officers, but not one of them was put in place, because police authorities chose to spend that money on other areas. We are therefore concerned to ensure that the crime-fighting fund is spent on those additional officers, who the hon. Lady has been generous enough to acknowledge have made a real difference to the visibility of policing in her area.
By targeting our grant, we can overcome some of the necessary imprecision in general grant figures. Using specific grants enables us to target funds where they are needed and to get real results on the ground. I realise that some forces are concerned about the long-term nature of specific grants and that that makes it difficult for them to plan ahead. I want to ensure that in all our specific grants we take into account the issue of long-term funding and sustainability.
I shall comment briefly on the rural policing fund, which is a big issue for the hon. Lady's constituency. As I said, Dorset's share of the 2003–04 fund was £440,000. As part of the overall changes to policing grant formulae in 2002, we considered whether to put the rural policing grant into the general grant. At that time, police authorities were concerned that that would leave a number of rural forces with less grant than before. We agreed that that outcome would have been counterproductive, and so we did not make that change. I assure the hon. Lady that that conclusion stands, and that the rural policing grant will continue.
Police authorities do not have to bid for the rural grant—it is allocated on the basis of a sparsity formula—but they do report on what they are doing with the grant. In the police force in the hon. Lady's area, they will be improving analysis of rural crime trends, considering the provision of community contact vehicles to ensure that the police are out and about in the rural areas, and supporting a project to try to improve call handling, which should improve performance on the ground.
The hon. Lady raised the important issue of pensions, which affects forces throughout the country, particularly when peaks of retirement occur and police authorities are called on to fund those peaks in pension requirements. As the hon. Lady said, that can be a real drain on a small force. I assure her that we are actively reviewing the pensions issue to see whether, in future, we can provide a system that will relieve some of the pressure on police authorities.
Reasonable provision is made in the annual formula funding settlements for the overall cost, and most forces have enough provision to cover net pension costs—certainly when they can call on pension reserves. However, we are now collecting new data to obtain up-to-date information on the real costs.
The current arrangements do not give a funded scheme that would provide for projected costs in the future to be covered by investing standard annual
324WH
contributions from the employer as well as the employee. If we were to establish a fully funded scheme now, it would be prohibitively expensive—we could not afford to do that. We are looking at the feasibility of a notionally funded scheme for police pensions, under which the officers' employee contributions plus a new employer's contribution could be topped up as necessary by central Government to meet the audited pensions bill. We would aim to smooth out the peaks and troughs of retirements that are often faced by the police authorities. When we issue details of the pensions review, the hon. Lady, and other hon. Members, will be pleased with some of the proposals that it will contain.
I have already had discussions with the Police Superintendents Association, the Police Federation, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities on the question of pensions. The issue is under active consideration.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of road safety income. I understand that all the income from fixed-penalty notices is invested locally in road safety schemes, and is ring-fenced for that. I advise the hon. Lady to find out from Dorset police what they are doing with that income and how it is being reinvested. We are keen that road-safety schemes and speed cameras are targeted at those areas where there are casualties, so that we can reduce the number of deaths and injuries on our roads. There are far too many road accidents. Speed cameras can make a difference, but they should be targeted properly in the areas in which they can have the greatest effect.
The hon. Lady also talked about community policing; clearly a topical issue in view of the consultation document launched by the Home Secretary yesterday on the long-term future of the police service and what it might look like in 10 or 15 years. We are determined to ensure that local neighbourhood community policing is at the heart of what we do and that the officers are valued and properly rewarded. We also want to ensure that the job of community beat manager is much appreciated by the force as well as by the local community, and that people will want to do it in the long term.
The hon. Lady is right that neighbourhood policing cannot function where officers are continually abstracted to do other duties. Increasingly, forces are allocating a specific number of officers in a community for the long term. That means that they can build relationships with local people and can be much more effective in gaining intelligence and information from the community, which means that they can do their job in the best possible way. Getting local community policing right is at the heart of our proposals, as is improving the connection between local people and their police service, examining accountability mechanisms, ensuring that local people have a greater say in setting priorities and in challenging us, as national politicians, to let devolution take root in local areas.
The hon. Lady also raised the important matter—the consultation document addresses it—of how we get the structure of forces right to ensure that they have sufficient capacity to cope with serious and organised crime. There is no point simply getting local community policing right unless forces have the resilience to tackle crimes, which increasingly threaten our communities, and some of the new technology that criminals are using.

325WH
That raises other questions. We should not reorganise for the sake of reorganising, but how can we ensure that forces, especially small ones, can combat organised and serious crime? They may be able to do so by collaborating with their neighbours, by specialising in particular areas or by amalgamating. if that is what they want to do. We must ensure that every level of policing has the best possible structure so that we can deliver the right equipment and the right staff, and can drive up performance.
I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Lady that the performance of the force in her constituency is extremely good. In the year to March 2003 in Dorset, burglary had fallen by 7 per cent., drug offences by 1 per cent., violent crime was two thirds of the national average, the incidences of burglary in a dwelling were half the national average, and the incidences of theft of a vehicle were roughly half the national average. Dorset is a safe place to live. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is committed to ensuring that Dorset still receives the appropriate level of policing and support. She made a very good case for her local area, but it is important to ensure that the country's resources are also directed to the areas of greatest need, as well as providing a decent amount of support for policing throughout the country.
That is why we want a framework of national standards, within which there is as much devolution as possible. My party does not simply advocate a free-for-all and that everything should be delegated to the local area, but we do see a role for national standards that give everyone in the country the right to a certain standard of policing and police performance; a key difference between the approaches of the political parties to some of the complex issues that are taxing us at the moment.
I am glad to be able to reassure the hon. Lady, but she will have to wait a little longer for the detail of the settlement, which will be published later this month. I congratulate her on speaking for members of her community and on ensuring that their voices are heard in this Chamber, which is the appropriate thing to do.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), I must tell hon. Members that although I do not believe that there will be a Division during the next debate, I will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes if there is.

Education Funding (Leicestershire)
4.14 pm
Mr. Andy Reed: Thank you for warning us that the Division Bell may ring, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about education funding in Leicestershire. When the Minister's team saw that in their in-tray early last week, I fear a groan must have gone around the Department for Education and Skills. There is a feeling that we have been here before.
Unfortunately, many of the problems in Leicestershire have not gone away, and it is necessary to return the debate to the Chamber. I declare a personal interest. My four-and-a-half-year-old son will start at St. Bartholomew's school in our home village, Quorn, in January next year. I was a governor of my local schools, first the school that I attended and, more recently a school in Sileby. I was educated in the local state schools, hopefully with reasonable success.
I wanted a balanced and open debate today, avoiding a lot of the clichés and soundbites traded over the last couple of years. I do not want to let either side off. The Minister knows me as a fair-minded person who will ask some searching questions. I am sure that he will answer them. I recognise the great advances in Leicestershire education since 1997, and I shall start by talking about some of those.
The policy is extremely complex and difficult for people to understand. I could almost bore for England on area cost adjustment and the standard spending assessment funding formula. I did not expect to have to do that when I first arrived as a Member of Parliament. However, those of us who joined the E8, as we were known in the early days when only eight of us moaned about local education authority funding, rapidly became the F40. I have attended many meetings both in the House and in my constituency to discuss the issue and, for something that is so complex, it creates a great deal of passion.
It is important to recognise that education funding is only part of the wider picture. Only yesterday, I was involved in a debate in this Chamber, in which we heard that research carried out in the London School of Economics had found that the most important factor in predicting whether a child would do well at school was not whether his parents were well educated, whether he was from a middle-class home or whether his school was well funded, but whether his parents were actively involved in his education. Given that billions are spent in an effort to drive up educational attainment and standards, the single most cost-effective thing that the Government could probably do is take action to ensure that parents can do more and spend more time with their children.
I hope that there is some joined-up thinking in Government. That phrase was over-used a few years ago, but it is vital that we still look at it. The full picture, in terms of educational funding between 1992 and 2001, needs to be shown. I have asked over 85 parliamentary questions—I checked the figure on the web yesterday—both written and oral on the issue, and I have a wealth of statistics in front of me. I will try to keep those to a minimum, but they are important.

327WH
Between 1992 and 2001, we have seen both year-on-year increases and decreases in education funding in Leicestershire. The year 1992–93 saw a 7.2 per cent. increase in funding. That was an election year, so one would expect that. In 1993–94, we saw a decrease of minus 9.7 per cent.—a real-terms cut for Leicestershire; in 1994–95, we saw a 0.9 per cent. increase—with inflation running at around 4 per cent., that represented a year-on-year real-terms cut; in 1995–96, we saw a 0.8 per cent. increase; 1996–97 showed a little improvement, with a 5.5 per cent. increase—again, probably linked to the election year. Following 1997–98, we have seen increases of 7.1, 6 and 5.6 per cent. I think that 2001–02 saw another 5.6 per cent. increase.
We have seen some great improvements in cash terms since 1997. Later I will quote some head teachers who recognise that that cash increase has started to feed through to schools. It is also important to recognise that the real-terms increase in spending per primary school pupil between 1997 and 2003 has been £600 per pupil in Leicestershire. For secondary pupils, the increase has been £530 per pupil. There have been year-on-year improvements from the base.
The biggest improvement is in our capital programme. That comes across strongly when one talks to local heads, or if one is involved in education in the county. I am sure that the Minister will know the figures off the top of his head. In 1997–98, capital expenditure in Leicestershire was £2.9 million; it rose to £6.5 million, which was quite generous; that even went up to £9 million, and to beat that we have now reached a figure of £25 million per annum. That is something to celebrate and it is sometimes lost from the overall debate when we focus on the formula spending share and the standard spending assessment. It is important to treat those as a basis from which to start.
I could talk about the summary of cash and the rest., but the key to what I am talking about is the difference that it makes to children. We have a positive story to tell in Leicestershire about what we have achieved with our money. At key stage 3, which covers 11 to 14-year-olds, we are in the top 25 per cent. At key stage 2 we are in the top quartile. Our GCSE and SATs results have improved—in the case of SATs from 65 to 76 per cent. Primary class sizes in particular—for five, six and seven year-olds—have reduced. At the school of which I was a governor in 1995–96, every class had more than 35 or 36 children. Those numbers are all reduced.
Mr. Alan Duncan: To make this debate even more fruitful than the hon. Gentleman is already making it, I want to ask whether the case that the Minister must answer is the charge of the inequity and disparity that Leicestershire and Rutland face, compared with other counties—not just the overall level of funding.
Mr. Reed: That is perfect timing by the hon. Gentleman. As hon. Members will have seen, I have turned the page and reached the "but": what he explained is exactly what I want to point out. The year-on-year percentage and cash increases have been delightful for us, but the problem has been that we have had the same funding formula since the early 1990s. We started in 1997 from a position of inequity. That is one
328WH
of the reasons why I joined the E8—later to become the F40—and asked so many parliamentary questions aimed at teasing out the problem.
One of my more recent questions was about the average. It is difficult to compare county with county in every case; we should look at comparable counties or areas. One of the starkest figures is the difference between Leicestershire and Slough. That example is not exactly the same as a county, but I was trying to identify the bottom and top levels of funding outside London. There are other figures that would demonstrate that Leicestershire falls well behind even the average comparable county. However, I shall give figures in relation to Slough. For three to 15-year-olds in Leicestershire the average sum is £2,939, but for Slough, at the top, the figure is £3,828. That is a 30 per cent. difference in funding. I accept that Slough is completely different; but can deprivation and area cost adjustment alone explain such a wide gap?
When I was working on the figures relating to the area cost adjustment, I found that the problem seems to lie there. Hon. Members present today who support my argument have been fairly active in the F40 group; on looking at the relevant tables we recognised that even when Leicestershire was second from the bottom of the funding formula under the previous Government and in the first few years of the Labour Government, when residency numbers, sparsity, additional educational needs and free school meals were taken into account, the cost of the difference between us and some other counties that were averagely funded was slight—that even applied to Hertfordshire, which was usually cited as way out at the top. The difference between Leicestershire and the bottom of the table was only about £40 or £50 a head, but when the area cost adjustment was built in, it jumped to about £250 or £300. That is where much of the problem lies.
I want to ask the Minister about the work that was done on the funding formula review, which I recognise was thorough, and which led to some beneficial changes. However, Leicestershire really needed change in respect of area cost adjustment. I have gone through the figures, and it appears that one problem was rejection of the idea of taking a variety of costs into account; it seems that the vast majority of what is taken into account is still based around wages and salaries.
Leicestershire Members will know that although the east midlands region has high productivity and employment, it has relatively low wages compared to some parts of the country. Compared to other regions, many quarters, especially south Leicestershire, are close to parts of what I would call the outer London commuter belt. Many of my constituents commute to London daily.
I am not necessarily seeking a funding formula that means that every one is the same. I am the first to recognise that there will be differences. There is even a funding formula in the county council's distribution to schools. Many heads have argued for the funding formula for Loughborough to be much fairer at county, rather than at national, level and I have taken delegations to county hall on that. We have many of the same problems on a smaller scale—they are important to the town itself—including English as a second

329WH
language and deprivation. Two of the richest wards in the county are next door to two of the poorest, just outside the city; Shelthorpe and Leamington Hastings wards are surrounded by Nanpanton and Outwoods. That means that figures are skewed in the whole and little pockets of deprivation can almost be missed. I am not looking for a miracle, but we want to try to narrow the gap between us and the best funded, or even the averagely funded, authorities. The disparity seems too great.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) wishes to speak in more detail on what happened in the change from the SSA to the FSS—the formula spending share—and our disappointment at that. To compound the problem, as my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, last year, we had the additional problems caused by the change in the overall settlement. I have met most of my heads during the past 18 months or so in numerous meetings. In a typical middle school—I shall not name the head or the school—last year's funding problems has meant increased class sizes for key stage 4 for maths and science, a rise in average class size from 22 to 27, the use of non-specialist teachers in various subject areas, fewer admin and technical side staff and additional staff not being available.
The head of that school commented, on the positive side, that the school has seen real budget increases in the past four years, enabling it to repair and improve dilapidated buildings, improve the working conditions of the staff and, most importantly, raise educational standards. However, he also said that it had been promised on several occasions that there would be more funding for education to carry out necessary reforms and improvements. Under the last Tory Government, at least he had known that there would be a cut in the budget year on year and could plan accordingly; last year had made things really difficult. That school is very well managed, but is now having to work with a deficit of £300,000.
I welcome last week's statement announcing an additional £3.7 million for Leicestershire as part of the transitional relief, but can the Minister assure me that he will meet a delegation from Leicestershire if we honestly feel that that was not quite enough? I know that everyone always comes to the Department saying that there is not quite enough, but I shall look around the schools and the deficits that have accrued as a one-off from last year—although there are very good teams of governors, heads and teachers—to see whether that £3.7 million is adequate.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for so generously giving way during his Adjournment debate. Has he, like me, been told that Leicestershire schools do not think that £3.7 million is enough for this year?
Mr. Reed: As the Secretary of State said in his statement, many schools—even before they knew the figures nationwide—had already said that the amount or package was not enough. My automatic reaction to that was to sit down, look at the £3.7 million and quickly think through the schools in my constituency and the
330WH
size of their deficits. A quick calculation made me realise that the amount would probably not be sufficient, so I make my plea to the Minister. I always try to be fair. I moan when necessary and praise when necessary, and I shall work through the figures carefully with others in the county. If there is a genuine case for coming back to the Department, I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend allowed us to meet him.
I want to be positive. There have been many positives for Leicestershire. There is still the problem of the funding gap, as it has been called, but I want to move on from that debate. We recognise that there will always be a formula and some discrepancies; we want only to decrease the size of them. Will my hon. Friend the Minister accept that it is difficult for people in Leicestershire to understand why there is such a gap between us and average counties, which have similar make-ups? I admit that last year was difficult, but we must be positive and say that a £2.7 million increase for education is something that we should welcome.
The Treasury has taken a good approach, but I want to know why that increase can be turned into a disaster at local level. At what point did Ministers realise that there was little headroom when all the other matters had been taken into consideration? However, we must not be negative. Investing in teachers' pay, pensions and working conditions is a real assistance for schools, but we must recognise the difficulties that it caused.
In conclusion, I wish to say that we have seen a positive change in Leicestershire. We have problems and we wish to work together with the Department to ensure that there is fair and equitable distribution of the moneys that are available. Will the Minister look again at the area cost adjustment element of the funding source? Will he confirm that he would be happy to meet us if we had a problem with the £3.7 million transitional relief for this year? So that we do not have to debate such matters again, will my hon. Friend ensure that, at every opportunity when such matters pass his desk and statements have to be made about funding, he will consider specifically the problems of Leicestershire and ensure that we achieve a fair deal? I am sure that he will do that. Over the past 18 months in which he has been in post, he has been aware of Leicestershire's problems and has done his best to alleviate them.
David Taylor rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am unable to call the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Loughborough took 17 minutes to make his contribution. He has now eaten into the Minister's time. I call Mr. Miliband. [Interruption.] The Standing Orders are simple to understand. We are holding an Adjournment debate, which is held to allow the hon. Member to receive a reply from the Minister. The Minister's time must not be eaten into.
David Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have sought the sanction of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, who initiated the debate, and that of the Minister. I wrote to the Speaker's Office, which seemed to be the way to comply with the requirements.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Standing Orders are simple. An Adjournment debate involves an hon. Member who is seeking a reply from a Minister. If the hon. Member concerned wishes to give up time to another hon. Member, he or she is entitled to do so, but taking 17 minutes, which is two minutes out of the Minister's time, does not leave time for any other hon. Member to speak. I call Mr. Miliband.
Mr. Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. McWilliam. Is it not a convention under the Standing Orders that hon. Members call the Adjournment debate and that there is no strict time set for the Minister to speak?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but under the basic Standing Order, it is for the Minister to reply to the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Loughborough said that he would give up time to another hon. Member, but spoke for 17 minutes, which is more than half of the time for debate. It is only fair to the Minister to allow him to come in at this time. I call Mr. Miliband.
Mr. Duncan: This is absurd.
Mr. Reed: On a point of order, Mr. McWilliam. I wish to be of assistance. I had discussed the matter beforehand and considered that if I were to take 15 minutes and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire took five minutes, the Minister would be more than happy to speak for 10 minutes. Can we proceed on that basis?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot be privy to those decisions. I call Mr. Miliband.
4.33 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Obviously, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) on securing such an important debate. He suggested that perhaps the Department did not have unalloyed delight at the prospect of another discussion about education funding. I wish to put him completely at ease about that. We are delighted to have the opportunity to debate funding in Leicester as well as anywhere else. I am certainly happy to receive comments from hon. Members during the 11 minutes that remain, if they want to say anything.
It is important to recognise the outstanding work that my hon. Friend has done to put the case for funding for schools in Loughborough. I want to put on the record that he has been tireless in such work. I am glad that he mentioned in passing the outstanding work that is done by many schools in his constituency and in the rest of the country. He will know that, over the past five years, teacher numbers have increased by about 10 per cent.
The January 2003 teacher count of 5,290 for Leicestershire was 490 teachers up on the position in 1998. They have produced some outstanding results. I was pleased that, over the past three years. Leicestershire schools have produced a rate of
332WH
improvement for GSCE at about twice the national average. It was highlighted in the May Ofsted inspection report that, at key stage 3, at the age of 14, there was a particular strength of schools in Leicestershire. My hon. Friend will know that the primary schools are also doing well at key stage 2.
I want to focus on funding. We have discussed it before, but there are new elements to consider, given the Secretary of State's announcement last week. My hon. Friend was generous in recognising the outstanding improvements that have been made in funding throughout the country as well as in Leicestershire. My figures tally with his, showing that in cash terms the increase in funding in Leicestershire has been about £950 per pupil during the past six years and that capital investment is now £28 million a year. That is up from £2.9 million in 1996–97, which is a tenfold improvement that can only be of benefit to pupils in Leicestershire.
I appreciate that people in Leicestershire are concerned that their county is the lowest funded on a per-pupil basis of the 150 local education authorities, and it is up to the Government to justify that position. One LEA will always be 150th, as one will always be first, and we must ensure that we have sound grounds for the distribution of money to local authorities.
My hon. Friend will know that the old system for calculating the local authority grant—the standard spending assessment—was out of date and based on the 1991 census. It was even more complicated than the current system and widely seen to be unfair, as it was based on historic spending patterns rather than set amounts per pupil for additional educational needs and to take account of area costs. That is what the new system does; those elements mean that similar pupils in different parts of the country are funded by the Department for Education and Skills in the same way. It is then up to local government to raise money for education and to distribute it in their area.
David Taylor: There is no doubt that the new formula is more transparent and has the potential for greater equity. Nevertheless, when the figures came into the public domain, it was clear that the disparity between counties had widened rather than narrowed, despite what counties and LEAs had hoped for and expected.
Mr. Miliband: I recognise the outstanding campaigning that my hon. Friend has done over the years, but I assure him that any changes are the result of population changes among counties. I could explain further in writing, if that were helpful.
I said that it was the Government's commitment to ensure that, as far as DFES funding was concerned, similar pupils in different parts of the country were funded in a similar way. That is why every primary school pupil is funded this year to the tune of about £2,100 as a basic entitlement. Extra money of up to £1,300 is available for additional educational needs, which is the same whether the pupil lives in Leicestershire, Lancashire or Leeds. There is also recognition of extra costs, which I will come to.
The reason for differential funding is that the English average for income support is 19.8 per cent. of pupils,

333WH
but in Leicestershire it is 9.2 per cent. We take account of that relative prosperity in Leicestershire when we distribute the grant for additional educational needs. English as a second language is also considered.
David Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to point out that Leicestershire is a relatively prosperous county, but in the absence of an adequate formula within the country to recognise deprivation, the schools in the less well-off areas—which tend to be in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough—are not receiving the benefits.
Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend makes a profound point, but one that is outwith my powers. As he notes, it is the joint responsibility of central and local government both to raise and to distribute fairly money for education. We distribute money fairly among LEAs, and it is then for each LEA to ensure that its funding formula recognises the different needs within its boundaries.
In Leicestershire, which is a large and diverse county, there will be difficult issues in the construction of any formula, but if my hon. Friend feels that pupils in his constituency or that of Loughborough are getting a raw deal from the Leicestershire funding formula, I am afraid that I have to point him towards local democracy and decisions made in county hall in Leicestershire. I do not decide the funding formula that local authorities use for the distribution of money to schools, but I can assure him that similar pupils in Leicestershire are treated similarly for the distribution DFES grants.
I want to address some specific points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, including the problems that have occurred this year and how we can get over them in the next two years, as they are obviously of central concern to teachers, governors and head teachers in the county.
My hon. Friend referred to the area cost adjustment. It is important to note the basis on which we distribute that money. We recognise that some local authorities have to adopt special measures to recruit and retain teachers, which means that they face extra costs, such as additional allowances to help recruit and retain staff, the cost of supply cover for vacant posts—it is worth noting that the vacancy rate in Leicestershire is now 0.6 per cent., relatively low by national standards—and the cost of recruiting and advertising for staff. The allowance is not based on teachers' pay scales, which are national—except for the inner-London allowance—because those scales do not fully reflect the differences in the costs of recruitment and retention. That is why we based the additional cost allowance on wage differentials around the country. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no political interference in that. The basis on which those wage differentials are calculated is a matter of national record.
I will now move on to some of the problems that have occurred this year, and how we propose to get out of them over the next two—
4.40 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.55 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Miliband: I shall try to regain my flow and passion with as much authenticity as I can manage, having lost some hon. Members and our friends from the media, who have obviously had their fill.
It is important to recognise that schools in some parts of the country have suffered genuine problems this year. There were significant changes to the local government funding system, and the changes in the standards fund hit individual schools hard. We are trying to overcome that in moving towards our goal of ensuring that every school has a three-year budget on which it can rely and on which it can plan. That must be the aim for anybody interested in sensible budget management.
The way in which we intend to do things this year addresses the acute issue of the responsibility of local government not merely to raise money for education but to distribute it fairly within its boundaries. The whole point of a constitutional settlement that gives an important role to local government is that local government can recognise the pockets of disadvantage and the needs within an area of which it is impossible for central Government in Whitehall to take proper account. I hope that local government will take those responsibilities seriously.
David Taylor: There has been significant progress in education since 1997, but it is starting to stall in some areas, including my constituency. Class sizes are drifting up, old textbooks are not being replaced, there is less support and contact time for teachers and there are fewer extra-curricular activities. Those are the sorts of things about which I receive letters as, no doubt, do other Leicestershire Members.
Mr. Miliband: I understand the dangers, but I would urge the hon. Member to ensure that schools and the LEA are in serious dialogue about the distribution of funds. This year, we need to deliver a minimum per-pupil increase for every school in the country. That has never been done before, and it means that the variation within the county should be reduced. Every school is guaranteed a per-pupil increase of at least 4 per cent. We have given an LEA floor of 5 per cent. Last year, the per-pupil increase for Leicestershire was 3.2 per cent.; it was a floor authority. This year it is 5 per cent. That gives an immediate and significant infusion of extra funds to help in 2004–05 and beyond, because it is built into the baseline.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough referred to the figure of £3.7 million. That is on top of the higher per-pupil floor for the LEA; in addition to the 5 per cent. increase, there is £3.7 million of transitional support designed to target precisely those schools that have an overhang from this year. We are fulfilling our responsibility to recognise some of the problems that have existed this year and to play our part in overcoming

335WH
them. In addition, we have reversed the plans to reduce the amount of standards fund being distributed over the next two years.
We all wait with eager anticipation to hear from the School Teachers Review Body, which will next week reveal its conclusions about school teachers' pay for the next two and a half years. Anybody who claims to know what budget problems they will have in that period before the figures are known knows something that I do not. Nobody can say whether they have problems or surpluses until they know about teachers' pay.
In conclusion, I recognise the passion and conviction that hon. Members bring to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met an all-party delegation from Leicestershire earlier this year to talk about the problems there, and numerous parliamentary and other questions have been asked. I appreciate the spirit in which he has suggested that those discussions
336WH
should continue. There is close dialogue at official level, and if he tells me that there is a need for further dialogue at ministerial level, I shall respond well to his suggestion.
David Taylor: I hope that those discussions will address the serious point that 4,500 pupils a day from the much better funded city are educated in the county. Perhaps something ought to be done to bridge that funding gap. That will be very helpful.
Mr. Miliband: It will be an interesting discussion. I suggest that we focus our attention on how to help Leicestershire schools over the next two and a half years. Stability in our funding formula is an important element, but we are guaranteed extra money on top of that. That can be put to good use by Leicestershire schools and I look forward to working with hon. Members to achieve that.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Five o'clock.