Identity Cards Bill

I have a feeling that the title of the Bill is wrong. It should not be called the Identity Cards Bill, but the title as effectively it appears in the Bill—a National Identity Register, which is the principle that we come to. I spoke in the first Second Reading debate. Two issues concern me—bureaucracy and cost. I ask the Government to revisit a Question for Written Answer that I asked in June 2004. I asked Her Majesty’s Government which documents issued by which government departments were proof of identity for which purposes? It was an extraordinarily long list, which is in Hansard. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was kind enough to reply—it took two months—with something that caused me considerable concern. Like the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that led me to believe that we should have an ability to prove our national identity. That ultimate proof—as I have put down in Amendment No. 269—is, of course, the passport issued by the Secretary of State by royal prerogative. It is the only accepted proof of identity worldwide. Therefore, the Secretary of State responsible for issuing passports should be responsible for ensuring that passports are issued only to bona fide people. Members of the Committee will be aware that in this country more than 80 per cent of British citizens have passports, which are adequate proof of identity and, probably, are the only acceptable proof of identity. Should your Lordships wish to have a new driving licence, a passport must be produced. A new driving licence is not classified as a full driving licence, which is, of course, the proof of identity required by the department with responsibility for social security. I take that as proof of identity being the vital criterion. How much should it cost to prove our identity? Noble Lords may well be aware that those of us who suffer the advantage or disadvantage of being heredity Peers with a different name have a tremendous problem proving our identity. Our father’s name does not appear on our birth certificates because he was not ennobled at the time. Therefore all my life I have suffered the difficulty and indignity of having to produce a birth certificate, a marriage certificate and my passport on which, on the continent of Europe, only two names may be accepted by the computer. I should be ““Selsdon Malcolm””, but my passport begins with ““The Right””, and sometimes I am ““Mr Right The””, possibly from Vietnam. At the other end of my name, rather embarrassingly I happen to be ““of Croydon””. So I am ““Monsieur Croydon Of””, since ““Of”” apparently is a Norwegian Christian name. Somewhere in the middle of that I am ““Selsdon Malcolm””. These are minor issues, but I feel that proof of identity is absolutely vital. I turn now to the frustration I endured when I went to the box down the road to have my identity confirmed. I thought that I was a reasonably ordinary looking person. The camera taking my photograph gave instructions in a synthesised Japanese voice: ““Move forward, move back, move sideways””. It then clicked. When the camera came to my eyes, the process took some 20 minutes. Apparently I suffer from hooded eyes. I was asked to open my eyes wide so that they could be seen. But then the wide-open eyes made the face look like some lunatic so that it did not relate to the original photograph. That failed. In the mean time the image was sent down the line electronically to the passport headquarters somewhere near Winchester, but there was a slight fault on the line. More exciting were my fingerprints. I have used them on many occasions as a proof of identity, and from time to time on various cards now. But because I had been working in the agricultural sector, pruning vines fairly heavily for several weeks, the ridges on my fingers had gone so that the prints were not recognisable. I then discovered that the technology, advanced though it is, probably cannot pick up four fingers and two thumbs on two hands. Furthermore, biometrically it could not absorb the data of one’s face. So it was unreliable. I spent quite some time discussing with officials at the Home Office the following question: what proof do we need to establish our identity? What will fingerprints show? Fingerprints work well if the ridges are not worn out, which happens with age. But they will not reveal what sex you are, or what your sexual orientation might be. They do not reveal that list of things that the Government, in the spirit of freedom of information, expect to be detailed. The question then was: could fingerprints reveal your sex or any other information? The answer is yes, but only if the DNA is taken from them. How long will it be before we turn to that procedure? The Home Office is quite keen for everyone to supply a sample of their DNA, as are the police, because they think that such a database might help to solve crimes. I believe that DNA was a help in some 70,000 cases last year. My worry is that as we consider the list of information to be included on the identity card, I do not believe that the technology is sufficiently advanced to be able either to absorb all the information or to regurgitate it. A further worry is that under freedom of information legislation, everyone may gain access to DNA details. Think of the number of paternity suits which may arise around the world brought by those born on the wrong side of the blanket. The Government are seeking to achieve an extraordinarily difficult objective here. I believe in using an identity card to prove identity, but equally the information we are seeking to include means that, as technological developments progress, by the time it is introduced the card will already be out of date. Moreover, we do not know what the cost will be. Given that, I support strongly the probing amendment tabled by my noble friend. First, how much is it going to cost us and, secondly, why do we not keep on reviewing it as progress is made?