Too much protest

Like Mr Nicholson, the butt of the comment, I have held many identity cards and licenses, some with photographs and some with in-built digital information. They were issued at the behest of industrial companies, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Transport, Colonial, Commonwealth and other Governments.

I have my passport needed to travel abroad and with Ryanair. A relative has to select which passport to carry depending on route. Later this year passports will change to include digital information presumably at the request of the United States.

I also have a collection of cards indicating my financial and affiliation status and my entitlement to a pension and public transport advantages. I was once advised that the Inland Revenue had access to many sites whereby they could check a person's assets.

The addition of yet another card will only increase the load on my wallet. Mr Nicholson indicated that only those with something to hide would fear the addition of an identity card. I can understand why Mr Eaton may dislike an addition to his wallet and possibly the initial increase in tax burden but not why he should feel accused of "fear" as was Mr Nicholson's contention for those who are illegally seeking advantages.

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much!

MICHAEL HUTTON

Cotherstone,

Barnard Castle.

Out of touch

Sir, - How sad that an apparently intelligent man (Tony Eaton - D&S letters, Jan 23) should express such vehement opposition to the idea of identity cards.

Perhaps he is too young to remember that we were obliged to carry such cards during the Second World War and, indeed, fresh cards were issued to servicemen and women when they were demobbed as late as May 1948. Would he have made such bitter complaint at that time?

To suggest that Trevor Nicholson criminalises those who do not wish to have compulsory identity cards shows that he is totally out of touch with many ordinary people who see the benefits so obvious to so many citizens, no less law abiding than Tony.

Is he incapable of understanding that such a regulation could save the country many thousands of pounds through closing loopholes in social security fraud, or does he wish to curry favour with those who make themselves a burden on the law-abiding majority such as himself?

Come on Tony - rejoin the real world and do not deny people such as Trevor Nicholson the right of free speech.

E D MORRIS

Crossbeck Road,

Northallerton.

Reality check

Sir, - I refer to the letters from Messrs Eaton, Holmes and Leake (D&S, Jan 23) and respectfully recommend a reality check.

Anyone has the right to disagree with ID cards but when they do not give a reason we are entitled to suspect their motives.

With regards to quantifying the hundreds of thousands of illegal residents in the country, you do not need to be a leading detective or possess a degree in mathematics. Many immigration officers have stated that the numbers of illegal immigrants caught attempting entry at Dover is only the tip of the iceberg.

You only need to look at the many companies who have been raided by immigration officers and caught employing illegal immigrants.

On a far more serious matter, virtually every week we hear of an illegal immigrant caught driving a car without tax, MOT, insurance or a driving licence. The introduction of ID cards would quickly quantify the numbers of people illegally in the country.

I strongly suspect the estimated cost of £3bn for introducing ID cards, as quoted by Paul Leake, comes from a left wing MP who is against ID cards. This equates to a cost of £60 per card for each valid resident for a card the size of a credit card. I don't think so somehow.

I can assure Mr Leake that the countries I have lived in where ID cards were compulsory were not a gimmick. There were very important security reasons.

In France ID cards are mandatory, and considering the French are arguably one of the most militant nations who celebrate on every Bastille Day their "freedom and liberty", ID cards are accepted without a problem.

TREVOR NICHOLSON

Mill Lane,

Leeming.

Hypocrisy

Sir, - I read with interest the report about the Northallerton and Romanby cemetery (D&S, Jan 23).

Two former councillors, Messrs Jack Dobson and John Pelter, were yet again trying to take the current Joint Burial Committee to task, this time over increased cemetery fees.

These increases are in the order of 33pc but there has been no increase in these fees for almost four years. However, what your reporter failed to mention was that these two same ex-councillors, when they were the leaders of this committee, raised cemetery fees by 200pc in September 2000.

The reason for this rise was to fund the extension to the cemetery that was then "guesstimated" to cost about £120,000. Surely such hypocrisy was worthy of a mention by your reporter but perhaps she failed do the research into this subject that would have given her this information.

The real costs from a tendering process had produced costs about 70-80pc higher than the original "guesstimate", not 400pc as reported. This tendering process was started by the former committee who set the specification for the works to produce the proposed extension to the cemetery.

This specification is now criticised by Messrs Dobson and Pelter, who were the leading lights on the former committee. Another example of hypocrisy.

Not only did the report overlook this fact, it also gave the impression that the rise in the costs for the extension to the cemetery was due to the action of the new committee. Only a little research would have revealed the true picture.

JOSH SOUTHWELL

Former Northallerton Town councillor

Water End,

Brompton