As my hon. Friend knows, we have only four minutes left in this debate, and I have not intervened on others.
A voluntary ID register makes no more sense than voluntary bus fares or voluntary juries. The huge benefits that will come to the citizen, to the Government and to private industry with the introduction of ID cards are to a large extent dependent on it being compulsory for everyone’s name to be on the national identity register. The figures in the Home Office benefits overview show that we could draw benefits worth £1.1 billion from the existence of such a register, but that we would draw 100 per cent. of those benefits only if we had 100 per cent. take-up. With only 50 per cent. take-up, the benefits would be less than 10 per cent. of that figure. This is precisely the point that the amendment does not deal with. With a take-up of only 60 per cent., the benefits would be less than 20 per cent. Only when we pass the 80 to 90 per cent. take-up rate will the benefits of this legislation really come to us.
The lion’s share of the benefits, in financial terms, will come from fraud prevention and the reduced cost of crime. Only a small benefit will come, in the earlier stages, from the greater efficiency of public services and from more effective control of work permits and visas. If we had a low take-up, we would see significant benefits only in public services and in immigration, although the savings would still be well worth having to organisations such as the Criminal Records Bureau, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Department for Education and Skills and the immigration and nationality directorate.
To reduce fraud, however, we need everyone to be in the scheme. As long as we are allowed to present alternative forms of identification, such as utility bills, the people who intend to commit fraud will do just that. It is ironic that hon. Members who were concerned about the weakness of List 99 and the sex offenders register should have missed the point that those weaknesses are in large part due to the lack of any way of being sure of someone’s identity. The Criminal Records Bureau has estimated that the time needed to carry out a check would come down from four weeks to three days if we had ID cards. More importantly, the result of that check would be much more secure.
The other point that we have missed is that the largest beneficiary of a full ID card system would be not the Government but the citizen. When someone has their identity stolen, they do not usually lose out financially. It is the bank that loses, and passes the cost on to other users. According to the Home Office, the benefit of ID cards would amount to about £420 billion for the citizen, and a similar amount to industry, but only about £240 million to public services. We have only to consider the costs and benefits of the ID card system to see that—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on Lords amendment No. 16, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 279.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Martin Linton
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 13 February 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
442 c1193-4 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 14:01:24 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_300492
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_300492
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_300492