Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

28 Jun 2005 : Column 1198

The more people understand the Bill's implications, the more they realise that what is a superficially attractive idea is not only dumb, but very dangerous. Anxiety about the Bill is growing among the labour movement, the trade union movement and, as we have seen, Labour Members.

The point of principle is not the introduction of an identity document that includes biometrics, which is inevitable, but the creation of a national registration scheme and national database. Notwithstanding the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I am not het up about the question of whether ID cards should be compulsory, because, as the Government have said, the card will be of limited use on its own.

In the Government's view, the ability to check the card against the record on the register will make the system secure. Far from providing benefits, however, the establishment of a huge database with everyone's personal details conveniently concentrated in one place could be very dangerous. It would create an ID-theft bonanza for any terrorists or criminals who penetrate the security—let us make no bones about it, they will find ways to penetrate the security. Computer experts have told us that no such database can be 100 per cent. secure, and that point has been proved in America, where the Department of Motor Vehicles database has been attacked.

Justine Greening (Putney) (Con): On the penetration of security, we currently have 80 million national insurance numbers in this country, but only 60 million people.

Lynne Jones: That is not particularly relevant. The Government are taking steps to remove the superfluous numbers. Multiple applications are, however, important, and I shall discuss that matter later in my speech.

A major objection to the Government's proposals is that they will not achieve their objectives, and if the scheme has any benefits, the disproportionate cost will far outweigh them. Hon. Members have already pointed out why the measures will not help in the fight against terrorism and organised crime and will be counter-productive. The Bill will also not help to stop benefit fraud, a miniscule proportion of which involves the use of false identities. The Government have not explained how their proposals will help in the fight against terrorism and organised crime.

What information will be stored on ID cards? We have been told that we will be able to access our personal information on the database, but we have not been told
28 Jun 2005 : Column 1199
about additional costs beyond registration or how long it will take to access or correct information. And we have not been told explicitly whether an audit trail detailing every occasion on which the police or security services examine our information will be available. We will not know about the huge amount of information that the Government will hold on us.

Mr. Love: One concern is that the ID cards commissioner will have no real powers to investigate such areas and protect the public interest.

Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend is right, and one registration ombudsman, as it were, has already expressed his concerns about that matter.

On the accuracy of biometric testing, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) discussed the results of the Government's enrolment trial in which the best result, 96 per cent. accuracy, was obtained by iris recognition. If iris recognition were used as the sole identifier, however, it would raise the possibility of up to 2 million false records in a database with 50 million entries. The Government have got wise to that point, which is why they have decided to use three biometric indicators—the iris, facial biometrics and fingerprinting—to make the database more accurate. Even if we were really lucky and achieved a 99.9 per cent. success rate, which might sound fine, it would still mean a potential failure rate of 1 in 48,000, which means that someone could access several different records using their own biometrics by creating different identities. Again, such a system would be a honey pot for organised crime and terrorists.

In response, the Government say that that trial was designed not to test the biometric technology, but to see whether people find the process acceptable, and that they are working to develop acceptable performance. They should not have introduced the Bill before calculating acceptable performance levels and whether the scheme is possible. A 99.9 per cent success rate, which I have mentioned, is way beyond the realm of possibility. In addition, 31 per cent. of disabled participants in the trial found iris recording very or fairly difficult, while the failure rate for disabled people, black people and people over 59 was low. The Government cannot deal with those issues, because even if they improve the technology, there will still be a failure rate and therefore a way for people to obtain multiple identities.

The biometric information will be stored on a massive centralised database. The Government have discussed EU proposals on biometric passports and identity documents, but the European Commission has expressed doubts about the storage of such information on a database:

28 Jun 2005 : Column 1200

That is why biometric passports, which will include facial biometrics and fingerprints, but not a central database are being introduced in Germany, which is a crucial difference.

The Government's assurances on cost beggar belief. They say that 70 per cent. of the cost of introducing the identity scheme will be incurred anyway because of biometric passports, but those assurances are about as credible as those they gave us about the threat presented by Saddam Hussein.

In fact, all that is required is a card and the information to be stored on it. It is true that the current passport database is massive, with 44 million records, but all it contains is the information that one has to give when one applies for one's passport. The photographs are stored separately. There is no storage of biometric data. The current system is minuscule in comparison with what is proposed.

On cost, the Government have rubbished the estimates put forward by the London School of Economics. So far, the only reason that they have given for doing so is that the LSE assumes that the biometrics will need to be replaced every five years. Yet the Government have said that themselves. I have a parliamentary answer from the former Home Office Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), which says that

In any case, the cost of collecting the data is minuscule in comparison with the cost of setting up and maintaining the database and trying to keep it as secure as possible.

Many of my colleagues have been beguiled into thinking that this is a good idea and were encouraged to send out dubious questionnaires urging people to support the party because of this proposal. Do they think that it will be popular? Wait until people have to enrol on to the system—they will have to travel to one of the centres, queue up, have their data taken, and be interviewed. And what happens if the scanning goes wrong?

This Bill should be killed at birth. If colleagues think that that is being disloyal to the Government, it is not—it would be doing them a service, not the reverse. It is the most serious piece of legislation that I have ever had to vote on in this House—more serious than the decision to go to war. I urge Members to think clearly about the implications when they decide how to vote.

6.22 pm

Next Section IndexHome Page