| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
24 Feb 2003 : Column 8—continued
Identity Cards
4. Andy Burnham (Leigh): What representations his Department has received on the consultation on compulsory identity cards. [98760]
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): The consultation paper on entitlement cards and identity fraud was published on 31 July 2002 and the deadline for submitting responses was 31 January 2003. However, we are keen to see the debate continue.
We have received more than 2,000 letters and e-mails from individuals and organisations on the consultation paper. Many of those arrived very close to the deadline for responses and are very detailed, and we will study them thoroughly over the coming weeks.
Andy Burnham : I thank the Minister for that reply, but I would urge her to go further than the preferred option and consider introducing a compulsory identity card scheme, with a requirement to register and an expectation that cards should be carried. That would be necessary to unlock the full benefits of identity cards in fighting crime and, in these uncertain times, might help to give people a greater sense of security. Who knows, it might even be helpful to the Tory party, which seems to be going through another identity crisis.
Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend knows that the consultation paper ruled out introducing a card that it would be compulsory to carry at all times. I can reassure him that I do not believe that a compulsory scheme is necessary in order to reap the benefits. There is no point in having a card unless it is universal and, therefore, it will be compulsory to register and obtain a card if Parliament decides to introduce a scheme. I agree with my hon. Friend about the benefits of a scheme, because if we are really serious about tackling some of the problems that have been raised today, such as illegal immigration, illegal working and identity fraud, we need a very secure method of establishing identity.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Does the Minister think that there is any reliable way to stop a supposedly voluntary card being required for an increasing number of purposes? How do Ministers intend, if they pursue this idea, to prevent the system failing to deliver the correct identity card to an individual? Do they have the Child Support Agency or the Criminal Records Bureau in mind as models?
Beverley Hughes: We are still considering the responses to the consultation. The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of how we can make sure that certain organisations do not start requiring a card. That would be a matter for the terms of the legislation. He is also right to imply that it is a long-term commitment; it would be a big enterprise—a big project. In determining our response—I mean the response of every Member, not just that of the Government—we need to think about how to address the issues and make the project a success, rather than using them as an argument for not entertaining its possibility. We need to think about where we need to be as a country, not now but in 10 years time, because it will take that long to set up the issuing equipment and to get every member of the population registered. We should not necessarily be thinking about whether we need the system now but about the future: where do we want to be in 10 years time?
Mr. Bill Olner (Nuneaton): Many responsible licensees and retailers with off-licences on their premises would welcome the speedy introduction of such an
identity card. It would also assist communities that are plagued by young hoodlums on drink-related offences. I urge her to address the matter more seriously.
Beverley Hughes: One potential use of such a card for young people would be as a proof of age. It is interesting that in many of the discussions that I held during the consultation process and in some of the qualitative research that we have carried out with different groups, including young people, many young people themselves have told us, "This would be really good and would enable us to prove how old we are". They would thus not get into difficult situations with retailers and others.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire): Any system of identity cards, whether voluntary or compulsory, would work only if the information source on which they were based was accurate and up to date. The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety recently conceded to me that, although there is a target of only three days from a court hearing for inputting data to the police national computer, in fact no police force achieves that in less than 11 days, more than four fifths of them take more than 20 days and some of them take more than a year. Given that for months the right hon. Gentleman denied that the statistics even existed, can the hon. Lady tell the House whether and when she will publish, in full, the Carter report into the Criminal Records Bureau so that we can then all judge—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not about identity cards.
David Winnick (Walsall, North): Is it not the position that there has been a marked lack of enthusiasm for any form of identity card on the part of other Departments—namely, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury? Why does not my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary understand that there is little evidence that any such card would deal with the abuses that have been mentioned or with terrorism? The idea is wrong and it should be dropped.
Beverley Hughes: We have had an extensive consultation exercise in order to get the views of ordinary people and of organisations which, rightly, want to express a view about the way forward. Among the 2,000 responses from individuals and organisations to which I referred, there is—on a cursory glance—support in favour in the ratio of about 2:1. As I said, we shall look at all the responses in great detail and the decision on whether to bring forward proposals will be a Government decision— not simply a Home Office one—and will be endorsed by the Cabinet.
Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton): What security measures will be in place in any Government ID card scheme to prevent unauthorised access to the vast array of personal and confidential information that will be stored on such cards?
Beverley Hughes: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has actually read the consultation paper. If he has done so, he will realise that he has just mistakenly implied that the card itself will contain a whole range of data. The card itself would simply contain identifying
data, possibly including a biometric. Those data would be a gateway offering access to other databases, thus enabling the card to be used to access other information. The card itself would not hold a great deal of information about any individual.Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act
5. Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon): When he expects to bring into force section 4 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and if he will make a statement. [98761]
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): We hope to commence section 4 within a matter of weeks. Revised appeal procedures have to be put in place first. The Lord Chancellor's Department is currently consulting on a revised set of Special Immigration Appeals Commission procedure rules, which will be subject to Parliamentary approval.
Mr. Dismore : May I remind my hon. Friend that section 4 empowers the Home Secretary to deprive a person of citizenship if he has done something seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom? Abu Hamza continues to spread his message of hate against Jews, Hindus, the United States and Britain. He has seditiously abused the sanctity of Finsbury Park mosque to incite violence and race hatred. He has actively recruited among British Muslims for terrorism abroad and has fundraised for terrorist groups. He is wanted overseas for serious terrorism offences. Is there any reason why section 4 should not be used to deprive Abu Hamza of his citizenship of our country, which he so obviously despises? That should be followed swiftly by the deportation that the British people think is long overdue and richly deserved.
Beverley Hughes: A month ago, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that this matter was under close investigation. The activities of the person referred to, and of other people, are being closely monitored. The Government will initiate deprivation action if we consider that the facts of an individual case meet the tests that are set out in section 4. My hon. Friend will understand that the previous legislation—the British Nationality Act 1981—was weak. It is right that we should wait for the implementation of the new legislation to ensure that we have effective measures to deal with this issue properly.
Mr. David Cameron (Witney): Is it not now clear that we have to go much further than the implementation of section 4 of the new Act? Is it not time to restore to the Home Secretary the ability to deport people who may threaten this country? Case law under article 3 of the European convention on human rights makes it impossible to do that, so is it not time that the Government saw sense, opted out of the ECHR, went back in with reservations, and gave the Home Secretary the power to protect this country from people who threaten it?
Beverley Hughes: The Conservative party is perpetuating a myth about the mechanics of the ECHR. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion would require the
country to withdraw from the ECHR. We would then have to legislate in a way that was incompatible with article 3 and ask the Council of Europe if it would allow us to re-enter with a reservation. That would be a tortuous and difficult process. We have not ruled it out but it is fraught with uncertainty. No other country has done it. There is no certainty that the Council of Europe would allow us to re-enter with a reservation. Reservations have to be very specific and that has not been tested. We are not going down that route at the moment. However, the Prime Minister has made it clear that, if our measures to tackle such problems are not as effective as we want them to be, we will consider whether we need to revise our obligations under various treaties.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |