Identity Cards Bill

It has been a very interesting debate, the balance of which has indicated the utility of the word ““convenience””. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, all agree that the word is a good word in terms of scrutiny. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for his assent in relation to the word ““convenience””. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, said, the word cuts both ways. This is not something which will be of convenience only to the Government; we will be looking at how convenient the processes will be for the individual, including the issues outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in regard to how many centres we will have and where they will be. The word was not inserted lightly; it was quite deliberately put in. It is a good word because it emphasises the kind of value that we wish to add to these provisions, and convenience is a matter of some concern. The scheme we are proposing is intended to become compulsory and will eventually result in everyone holding a biometric identity card that identifies them and them alone, and therefore the convenience of that process is quite important. It will thus become a useful method of providing identity and I cannot agree with the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that it will not be convenient. I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that I hear what he says in relation to the number of cards but I hope he will accept that the identity card will be the definitive way in which many people will be able to identify themselves to others. The data that we have produced and are contained in the most recent report of 2005 show the utility which individuals anticipate they will be able to benefit from. This is not by any means to suggest that as a result of having the identity card, we would then abandon all other cards, not least because we have the DVLA card—the driving licence—and a number of other cards which give one specific entry into specific services. But that does not in any way detract from the utility and importance of the ID card for all the reasons I have alluded to already. The fact that we have no national identity card scheme is in many ways a major inconvenience. Most of our European partners already have identity cards so, say, for a French or Italian national, the easiest and most convenient method of proving identity is to use that state’s own national identity card. That can also be used as a travel document within the European Union in place of a passport—another great convenience. If the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, is concerned about the convenience of obtaining the identity card rather than the convenience of using it, then to maintain the highest level of integrity of the identity card scheme, it will be essential to have enrolment in person. I think that most people would accept that that is necessary to ensure that the United Kingdom identity card is issued to the highest standard. For a document that is valid for 10 years, we do not regard that as a major inconvenience. Most other countries expect people to make a personal visit to apply for an identity card or passport. Most people manage quite well to visit a registry office to register a birth or death or to visit a local driving test centre. Visiting a local identity card enrolment centre will not be much different. I hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, says about the number of previous addresses. Of course we shall have to consider those details in order to ensure that we have sufficient data to make the identification real. I understand his question about how many there should be to avoid it being over-burdensome. That is an important point. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and other noble Lords that biometric data are not the only identifier. We hope to use biometric data as an additional tool for verification. On two occasions the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, referred to the research that suggested that only 7 per cent of people supported these cards once they were told the cost. However, I say with the utmost respect—and I am sure he knows this—that that figure related to data that are now quite old. The most recent research was that published last month; it showed support at 75 per cent when people were made aware of the £93 unit cost of a passport-ID card package. This was a sophisticated piece of market research, where people were made fully aware of the issues such as having to travel to an office to record biometrics. The figure of 7 per cent that was published was based on research conducted in 2002–03, which showed support at 79 per cent. The 7 per cent figure represented the number of people who said they were willing to pay more than £20. But I hope that the noble Earl will accept that the research undertaken then was far less sophisticated than that which we have now. The whole debate has moved on a long way since then and there is a much better basis for our knowledge and understanding. Therefore, the figure the noble Earl referred to is not as reliable as that which we published last month. We took the trouble to undertake that research because we understood the import of what people were saying. It was important to understand what people wanted, the basis on which they would agree to it and whether cost was a major impediment. The Government needed to know where that benchmark should be. In relation to biometric performance, one of the largest scientific studies today of fingerprints, with a sample size of 6 million, was conducted by the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology using data collected in operational circumstances, rather than laboratory conditions. It showed a performance consistent with the needs of a scheme on the scale of the ID cards scheme. Although it was one of the world’s leading studies into the use of biometrics, the London School of Economics overlooked it in its report, which is curious because we know how assiduous that body usually is when looking at research that may be pertinent. I am surprised that the LSE does not appear to have alighted on that study. One reason why we treat the LSE study with caution is because it is just not as rigorous as one would normally come to expect. The UK Passport Service biometric trial, which the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, mentioned, was not a trial of the technology. It was intended to learn more about the customer experience of recording biometrics, so we cannot draw definitive technical lessons from it about the performance of biometrics. We have a good operational base—