Identity Cards Bill

As soon as we enter into real discussion, it becomes clear that if your justification for the Bill is that it can be used, for example, in stop and search, it will become a requirement to carry it with you. If you are going to be stopped, there is no point in saying, ““I haven’t got it. It’s back in the house””. You are going to be required to show it if you are to show that you are not an unlawful immigrant. There is therefore a bit of deception around the purposes and the intention in the longer term. I think that we must be honest about the nature of this debate. My concern is about where that takes us. We have seen the business in France of les marginaux—the people who recently demonstrated the extent to which they feel excluded. Those who work in the area of rights in France have found that the use of the identity card as a way of harassing minorities has been one of the ways in which people have become alienated. But that is not what I want to talk about: I want to talk about the sense of the amendment, which is surely not demanding too much. If we are to introduce something as serious as this—a change in the relationship between the citizen and the state—to review it annually does not actually demand very much. I, too, have concerns about security and the security of the centralised database. For many who object to the scheme, the issue is not the need to have an identity card but the creation of an extraordinary central database, its potential for expanding and the uses to which it could be put. I chair the Human Genetics Commission, which had to deal with the whole issue of databases. It is important that in developing our ideas about the epidemiology of disease, we bear in mind that taking DNA from people could be useful for longer-term studies. In fact, a database is currently being created of 500,000 people in Britain, with their consent, for long-term studies using their DNA. For people to be prepared to enter into those studies, there had to be a consideration of the extent to which the database could be secure. It was interesting to receive evidence on that, because what became clear from those who really understand the issue of encryption is that making databases secure is impossible. I see noble Lords nodding. Have the Government taken evidence on that? Anyone who works in this field on huge databases will tell them that such databases cannot be made secure so that they cannot be penetrated; it is impossible. Once we know that making databases totally secure is impossible, we have to be honest with the citizens of this country. They say, ““Yes, we would love to have an identification card, because we think it will make it easier to open a bank account or to get an account at a video store””. Of course it would be highly convenient, but once you mention to them that there are security issues—as has become the case in giving DNA for databases—people are much more concerned. In the polling that takes place people can look at the benefits that could come from having an ID card, but have we ever spelt out the risks and possibilities for abuse that could occur if that information were held in a central database? Links can easily be created between one database and another database. An exemption has been created for medical information, and people are being reassured that it will not be in the database. A noble Lord has already mentioned that if you give your fingerprint nowadays more often than not your DNA is available, because the quantities involved are so minute that you get the DNA too. As a lawyer working in the criminal courts, I assure noble Lords that fingerprints are only one small bit of it. While we are considering the issue of DNA, people should know that there are important issues coming down the turnpike for us. One of those issues is that as we reform the welfare state many are interested in knowing more about the citizens of this country. Employers, insurers and pension fund operators will all be interested in knowing about your longevity, your potential for disease, the way in which your lifestyle might affect your health chances, and so on. The people of this country deserve to know that as that reform is happening, many people will be keen to have information and access to databases. We have to be honest about the fact that those databases cannot be held totally secure. So before we embark on this, people should realise that we are at a moment in time when technology can be harnessed to both good and damaging ends. We have not talked enough about the serious issues around DNA. We have never had a public debate about where we are going with DNA. Will it be protected? Will it be possible for insurers, pension providers, or employers to have access to genetic tests? Since none of that has ever been properly debated in our public fora or in Parliament—