UK Parliament / Open data

Identity Cards Bill

I will certainly look at it, but I do not think that it is a difficulty. I am relatively sure that parliamentary counsel will tell me that the three elements have to be read together and, therefore, the position is absolutely clear. I am more than happy to consider this because I am clear that the Government intend that only external characteristics are required and we believe that that is delivered by the Bill. We will look again to ensure that that is the proper construction and, if any further clarity is needed, I shall be happy to look at it. I do not think that there is any difficulty, but I understand the noble Lord’s concern. Amendments Nos. 90, 110 and 117 deal with fingerprint issues. Fingerprint evidence was first used in court to convict an offender as long ago as 1902, more than 100 years ago—a date which I am sure will please the noble Earl. To reiterate, it is intended that we will capture the 13 biometrics—that is the 10 fingerprints, the two irises and the face. Amendments Nos. 90A and 111 would limit any fingerprint biometric recorded on the national identity register and on application to index fingers only. A scheme the size of the United Kingdom ID card scheme would not have a high likelihood of success if only two fingers were used. More are required to differentiate between people with the degree of confidence we require when a large population is involved. I think we have already dealt with the issues regarding the EU and the ICAO requirements. They are, as your Lordships will know, minimum common standards. The introduction of these requirements and the introduction of initiatives, such as the US-visit project, may be initial drivers for the identity card scheme, but, as I tried to indicate earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, we are trying to find the best model we can to ensure that it has the longest lifespan and the greatest degree of accuracy. Therefore, we are looking now to find that. We wish to approach it with our 13 biometric identifiers because that is the best quality information we have at the moment. I hope that with those responses noble Lords will feel reassured and that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

676 c988-9 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top