Committee seeks clarity on ID cards

The Commons home affairs committee has backed in principle government plans for identity cards, but has said that a range of problems must first be addressed.

In a report on the controversial proposals released on Friday, a majority of the MPs gave the scheme their support.

But two committee members - Labour's David Winnick and Bob Russell of the Liberal Democrats - rejected the Home Office initiative altogether.

And the main report said several aspects were "poorly thought out".

Home secretary David Blunkett welcomed the report, saying the committee had agreed with him that "the project will deliver real benefits and should go ahead".

But the opposition parties were more sceptical.

The Conservatives warned that the details contained "potentially fatal" loopholes, while the Liberal Democrats argued that the scheme lacked "a clear rationale".

Report findings

The influential cross-party committee said its inquiry had uncovered a "lack of clarity and definition on key elements of the scheme and its future operation".

ID cards, set to be introduced on a voluntary basis from 2007 if legislation is approved, would benefit the fight against crime and terrorism, the report concluded.

But there were concerns over the potential escalation of the biometric cards' use by authorities and the unfettered access the security services would have to the data.

"The Bill should contain an explicit reaffirmation of the right of individuals to see both the data held on them and the audit trail of who has accessed those data and on what occasions, subject only to... national security and crime exemptions," the report said.

Clarity concerns

The MPs also warned that the introduction of identity cards "carries clear risks, both for individuals and for the successful implementation of the scheme".

"We are concerned by the lack of clarity and definition on key elements of the scheme and its future operation and by the lack of openness in the procurement process," they added.

Committee chairman John Denham, a former Home Office minister, said his old colleagues in David Blunkett's department should listen to the criticisms before pressing ahead with private sector pilots.

"This ID card scheme should go ahead but the government must take serious note of the criticism we make of the way the plan is being developed," he said.

"We need more clarity on the way the card and the register will work in practice.

"The Home Office has allowed commercial sensitivities to stand in the way of proper technical and public scrutiny of the practical details of the scheme."

Blunkett reacts

Following the publication, the home secretary insisted his plan would "deliver real benefits, in particular making a significant contribution to tackling organised crime, terrorism, illegal working and illegal immigration".

Blunkett also defended the principles behind the scheme.

"ID cards will bring enormous benefits to us as individuals and as a society," he said.

"The government is acting now to prepare the UK for 21st Century challenges such as crime, security, the speed and nature of communication and international travel, and the number of sophisticated and complex transactions that we as individuals need to do effectively and securely."

Promising more consultation before the final plans are unveiled, the Cabinet minister also said there would be guarantees against "function creep".

But he rejected calls for more information to be made public on the cost of the planned scheme.

"I do not accept that it is appropriate to release detailed, market-sensitive information about the financial and contractual aspects of the scheme at this stage," he said.

"I understand the desire for more information, but we need to balance this with our duty to ensure we get the best value for money for the taxpayer."

Opposition concerns

Shadow home secretary David Davis said the report supported criticisms of the scheme put forward by his party.

"The three month period in which EU nationals would not be required to register is a potentially fatal loophole," he said.

"There is real concern that the viability of biometric technology remains unproven, and the committee are also clear that ID cards on their own are not the solution to terrorism and illegal working that David Blunkett claims they are.

"If the home secretary carries on like this, we will end up with a scheme that is both fatally flawed and so far in the future as to be irrelevant to the problems of today."

The Lib Dems also pointed to criticism of the details of the scheme.

"This is not the endorsement that David Blunkett will have been hoping for," said home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten.

"This damaging report shows that the scheme lacks a clear rationale, and that ministers are refusing to come clean on the question of costs.
 
"If the government produced a properly argued, carefully costed scheme, we would look seriously at it. We have a shared interest in attacking crime and terrorism.

"But that does not mean the government can pull the wool over our eyes when taxpayers' money and civil liberties are at stake."