Identity Cards Bill

I have nothing at all against fingerprints. In fact I keep a set of my own, so that if there were any robberies, I could be eliminated as a potential criminal. My fingerprints are on some of my travel cards, so that I can obtain certain benefits when I arrive by shoving my finger in a slot and typing in the details of the aircraft I am travelling on. I have tremendous sympathy with my noble friend Lady Seccombe—and there has been no collusion between us—on the subject of Germany, on which I intended to intervene. I go there regularly and the Social Democrat party is very much opposed to such moves because they do not want Germany returning to a police state. Those are not my words. All parties in Germany agree with that, because they have a pathological fear of the rise of the dominant centre. Two fingers is all right—I am sorry I should not have said that, but their use came from the battle of Agincourt and it depends which way round you put them. It is worrying that the use of fingerprints should be deemed so important. I still prefer the original requirement to register identifying marks such as a mole or, more likely today, a tattoo—although that would occupy many pages—on a passport. There was a discreet method whereby if someone lost a finger or something, that disability would be politely and quietly noted. As Members of the Committee know, many people, including children, lose the tops of their fingers, so I wonder what would happen if on their arrival in the United States or the United Arab Emirates—the noble Baroness seems to think that those are the two most important biometrics centres in the world—it was found that they were missing a finger. I support the amendment. I do not believe that we should make too much fuss about it, but it is so logical, sensible and gentlemanly.