Oral Answers to Questions — Home Department – in the House of Commons at 2:30 pm on 9 June 2008.
What estimate she has made of the likely effect of the introduction of identity cards on levels of identity fraud.
We estimate that ID cards will prevent at least £310 million of ID fraud as they are implemented. Clearly, the benefits of the ID card scheme will increase as take-up increases after the 2011 roll-out to the general population.
Two of the worst 10 postcodes for ID fraud in the country are in my constituency, so I welcome the Minister's estimate that the minimum savings will be £310 million, and I would value her confirmation that the maximum savings would be £575 million. In view of that, will she urge Opposition members of the all-party group on identity fraud to stop opposing ID cards, since they would make the biggest single contribution to reducing ID fraud?
Order. It is not a responsibility of the Minister to do that.
The Government's position on compulsion is absolutely clear and has been from the moment the ID card scheme was first mooted. We believe that once ID cards have been rolled out to the general population, and then only if there is wide acceptance of the scheme, the Government of the day could make a proposal to Parliament to vote on whether ID cards should be compulsory, but there are no plans for compulsion at the point of introduction in 2011. [ Interruption. ] I am being interrupted by sedentary comments, so it is worth adding that 80 per cent. of British citizens currently have passports, and we envisage that, about 10 years after the roll-out in 2011, we will see a similar take-up of either passports or ID cards for the population, which is a pretty good coverage.
The Minister seems slightly confused about compulsion, but can she clear up another area of confusion? Can she explain why, at the Crewe and Nantwich by-election, the Government literature complained that the then Conservative candidate—now, I am happy to say, my hon. Friend Mr. Timpson—
Order. It would not have been Government literature; it would have been party literature. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could rephrase his question by saying something like, "An organisation that supported the Government". How is that?
I always seek to be accurate at the Dispatch Box, and saying that the whole Labour party supports the Government would not meet that criterion. Nevertheless, Ministers have said that it would not be compulsory to carry ID cards. At Crewe and Nantwich, they said that it would be compulsory to carry ID cards. Will the Minister say whether it is now the new Labour vision of Britain that if people nip out to the corner shop to buy a pint of milk, they must carry their papers to show to the authorities, and is she proud of that vision?
I am really rather sad that Her Majesty's Opposition have sunk to such pathetic depths to scaremonger in that way. Let me make it really clear, if it was not clear already: the legislation that has passed through the House makes it absolutely clear that there is no compulsion to carry an ID card. Furthermore, section 13 of the Identity Cards Act 2006 prohibits the presentation of the card specially to access a public service. There is a difference, however, for foreign national identity cards, and I challenge the hon. Gentleman and his party to tell us where they stand on whether foreign nationals should be compulsorily required to have an identity card, as part of their immigration status in this country.