Identity Cards Bill

I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that we have good grounds for including it. The whole point of using biometrics is so that we can accurately identify the individual who is to be named either in the passport or in the identity card. It is important that we get that right. In debating the previous clause, we spoke about biometrics and I emphasised the background against which the data will be taken. The biometric data will be used as a confirmation of the other details that will be taken when the person is interviewed to ensure that they are who they say they are. That will then be securely recorded so that thereafter that identity cannot be stolen or taken away. Ten fingerprints are needed to facilitate a unique record—that is, one of many—because a check that aims to ensure multiple enrolments will not occur. Two fingerprints are not sufficient for this purpose. The US-VISIT system is expected to move to more than two fingerprints as the size of its database increases. Already the benefits of taking 10 fingerprints is greatly appreciated and taken on board. It is not therefore right that the US will stick to two fingerprints, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, may have been told. In framing the new system, we must therefore look at the best available knowledge and data and anticipate it so that we can ensure that our system has the integrity we will need. I turn to the individual amendments. Amendment No. 183 would prevent biometrics, other than fingerprints, being confirmed on a check with consent under Clause 14. Biometric information cannot be provided from the register under that power. Subsection (2)(g) limits the information to confirmation that the biometric information provided coincides with the information on the register. As I say, take the other details and the biometrics will confirm the identity. Amendments Nos. 90, 110 and 171 would completely remove the reference to fingerprints. Fingerprints are a type of biometric information, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, finds them slightly uncomfortable because they have previously been associated with criminal activity and a way of identifying a person. However, they are important because they are a way of accurately identifying people. The noble Lord is right to say that technically we need not have mentioned them separately, but the Bill specifically mentions fingerprints, iris recognition and photographs, to make our present intentions clear. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made a point on the inclusion of irises as external characteristics. All the physical characteristics specified in the Bill can be viewed externally. One can see the iris by external observation. We have made clear that physical characteristics are external characteristics because the Bill does not include any internal element or organ that would have to be examined by use of an X-ray or anything of that sort. It is only what can be observed externally. The combination of Clauses 1(7) and 43 and the schedule makes that clear. The noble Lord will remember that, at one stage in the other place, there was concern about whether we were limiting the characteristics to biometrics and external features, or whether DNA would be included. We wanted to make absolutely clear that it was external identifiers only. That was the reason for the combination of Clauses 1 and 43 and the schedule.