Westminster Scotland Wales Northern Ireland London European Union Local


[Advanced Search]
Login | Contact | Terms | Accessibility
Parliamentary Briefing: Identity Cards Bill

The Government’s plans to introduce a national identity card scheme were narrowly backed by MPs and is now progressing through its stages in the Lords.

 

The Bill has received fresh criticism in October from the Lords Constitution Committee. A report by the Committee found there were “insufficient safeguards” in the Identity Cards Bill.

 

“Contrary to the Government’s assertions, the Committee reaffirms that the Bill fundamentally alters the relationship between citizens and the State,” said Committee chairman, Lord Holme of Cheltenham

 

“The Committee firmly reject Government claims that, in respect of privacy, ID cards are comparable to driving licenses and passports.”

 

To view the briefing in action in the Commons please click here

 

This Briefing provides responses to the Identity Cards Bill from the following organisations:

 

British Computer Society IEE

Disabilities Trust RNIB

Finance & Leasing Association GMB

The Government has stated that it expects the Bill to bring the following benefits:

• A reduction in illegal migration and illegal working; and better community relations as a result

• An enhancement to the UK’s capability to counter terrorism and serious and organised crime

• Reduced identity fraud

• More efficient and effective delivery of public services

Critics of the Bill argue that the scheme would:

• have a negligible impact on crime and terrorism

• impact disproportionately on ethnic minorities

• represents a serious threat to time-honoured civil liberties

• be costly to implement

• rely on unproven new technology

Summary of responses

Institution of Electrical Engineers

 

IEE

 

The IEE (Institution of Electrical Engineers) has identified a number of risks with a national identity scheme.

 

By its very nature the proposed National Identity Card System is a high risk project. 

 

This is due to:

  • the sheer scale of the project, which must cater for up to 100 million data subjects
  • the integration of cutting edge biometric technology with complex IT systems
  • the need for usability and acceptance by all citizens.

The IEE has called for:

  • the costs to allow for social and technological research, and system prototyping
  • assurances that the stored biometric cannot be tampered with, even by organised criminals with substantial resources.
  • mechanisms and compensation schemes to ameliorate damage if an individual's biometric data is compromised either by accident or as part of an identity theft. 

Disabilities Trust

 

Disabilities Trust

 

The Disabilities Trust supports the Disability Rights Commission's concerns over the Government's proposed ID Cards Bill.

  • In particular we back the DRC proposal that the Bill be subject to an equality impact assessment to determine the full consequences of this legislation for disabled people.  
  • It is vitally important that an ID Card does not in any way inhibit disabled people from accessing key public services that are essential to helping to meet their needs.
  • This is especially true if an ID Card makes applying for benefits such as Housing benefit or Incapacity benefit more difficult and complex. 
  • And there are some vital questions to be answered around the issue of cost. The Government's proposals appear to include making people pay for the cost of their ID Card.
  • Many disabled people live on very low incomes and it would be difficult to justify expecting them to meet the cost of their card especially if some of the claims about the potential final cost prove to be anywhere near accurate.

RNIB

 

RNIB

 

The ID Cards Bill will have a substantial impact on millions of disabled people. We want to ensure the access needs of disabled people, particularly blind and partially sighted people, are considered by government throughout all aspects of the scheme. 

Our main concerns are:

1)      Disabled people must be given assistance, or provided with transport to and from Registration Centres.

 

2)      All correspondence relating to registration must be available in a format that disabled people can read and understand.

 

3)      Disabled people unable to provide certain biometric data must have their rights respected by staff conducting registration not to provide these data.

 

4)      All staff involved in the ID Cards Scheme must have comprehensive disability awareness training so that they are fully aware how disabled people with different impairments may need to be treated and provided for.

 

5)      Means of verifying the identity of card holders, such as through PIN numbers must have accessible alternatives, such as passwords or questions that can be answered.

British Computer Society

 

The BCS is concerned that if HMG is to embark on this very ambitious project, that the skills, products and budgets are available to enable the project to be completed successfully. 

Our view on the current bill is that:

  • The scope and purpose of the identity card is unclear, with a number of different stated purposes.  Unless you have a tight and fixed definition of its purpose, defined success criteria, etc it is difficult to see how such a system could be taken forward.
  • This will undoubtedly be a large and centralised system as currently outlined in the bill, and this type of system attracts a high risk of failure.  In the case of identity cards this may be both in meeting the technical requirement and  in meeting the user acceptability aspects of the system.  We have yet to see how this might be addressed.
  • Thinking needs to be that this is an identity process and system - the actual card is of secondary importance by comparison with the logistics of proving the citizen's identity beyond reasonable doubt.   Less attention has been paid to this area than it deserves.
  • There needs to be more attention paid to how such a card might be used by other central and local government systems charged with delivering the services to which the card might operate as an entitlement card.
  • It might also be questioned whether the technology to build such a system exists today in a robust and usable form.


Finance & Leasing Association

Finance & Leasing Association

FLA welcomes the Bill in principal and supports the introduction of identity cards as a means to combat identity fraud which costs the industry millions of pounds every year.

  • We would like to be closely involved with the Home Office on the practicalities of implementation of the scheme, notably access to the register for specific purposes and how the register will operate. We would also like to see the fullest possible data-sharing between the public and private sectors to ensure the accuracy of the register. It is important that our members have access to readers via an accredited licensing system.
  • Our members favour an informal arrangement with the authorities to ensure that they are never knowingly provided with false information which impacted adversely on the business.

  • The key to the success of the scheme lies in how well the data is gathered and its integrity for it to become a reliable tool in identity verification over and above the existing forms of ID which are currently being used by our members.
  • FLA seeks clarification on the specific uses of the cards and whether financial institutions will able to accept them at all.
  • FLA would also welcome a fuller explanation of what biometric information the card will carry; how the information will be stored, checked, and read; and whether and when new technology will outdate information or methods.

GMB

 

 GMB

 

GMB is opposed to the Governments plans to introduce compulsory ID Cards in Britain. 

 

We believe that their:

 

  • introduction is a serious threat to civil liberties. We fear that this will open the door for other civil liberties to be compromised if we accept the introduction of Identity cards

 

  • use will be discriminatory and further stigmatise minority communities

 

  • payment by individuals is unfair

 

  • introduction will not increase security, but rather that the evidence shows they may offer a false sense of security

 

 

More on these views

Click on the links below for more information on these views

 

Published: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:05:00 GMT+01

©2008 ePolitix.com

About ePolitix.com | About Stakeholders | Contact | Help | Register | Terms | Accessibility