| Paragraph No. and text
| Progress report 2004
| Progress report 2005
|
| Paragraph 83: It is also clear that the integrity of the UK system will be dependent on the integrity of the passport, asylum and visa regimes in other EU countries. In our visit to Germany we were told of a pilot scheme involving biometrics to prevent fraudulent asylum and visa applications. The Minister of State has set out the UK's involvement in similar schemes. As part of the development of the identity card scheme, the Government should report regularly to Parliament on progress being made across the EU to tackle any weaknesses in other EU countries, and, in particular, those countries currently judged to be the least secure.
| Home Secretary in evidence on 2 November confirmed that he would report to Parliament on work being undertaken in the EU on enhanced security features for documents.
| Accepted. This work was mandated by the Hague Programme (JHA 5-year work programme) in November 2004 and reinforced by the special JHA Council of 7 July 2005.
The work is intergovernmental as there is no Community competence over ID cards.
A Resolution of the Member States was adopted by the JHA Council on 1 December 2005. It contains interim conclusions on technical features and agreed minimum standards on the security of issuing processes.
The Home Secretary wrote to the Chairs of the European Committees in both Houses on 31 October 2005 to inform them of progress.
|
| Paragraph 147: The structure of the database, and how to set it up and manage it, are among the most important choices the Government has to make. We are greatly concerned that the Government's procurement process appears to be taking these key decisions without any external reference or technical assessment, or broader public debate. We recommend the Government publishes details of consultations with any external bodies and also any technical assessments that have been undertaken.
| Technical specialists are already engaged in advising on procurement.
| Accepted in part. Technical specialists are already engaged in specifying database architecture requirements that will comply with policy requirements for the National Identity Register whilst allowing for connectivity with other databases that will enable use of ID Cards as the key to other government services. Wherever possible, procurement requirements will be expressed in such a way as to allow the market to propose alternative solutions that are compliant.
|
| Paragraph 175: The security and reliability of biometrics are at the heart of the Government's case for their proposals. We note that no comparable system of this size has been introduced anywhere in the world. The system proposed would therefore be breaking new ground. It is essential that, before the system is given final approval, there should be exhaustive testing of the reliability and security of the biometrics chosen, and that the results of those tests should be made available to expert independent scrutiny, perhaps led by the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser.
NB This is raised also at point 57 and is dealt with here.
| Work is ongoing. Results will be made available subject to security and commercial considerations.
| Accepted. Trials during procurement will examine enrolment and verification performance, usability, resistance to spoofing and will include testing the ability to find matching sets of fingerprints in a large database. During the early years of Scheme operation enrolments will be closely monitored to ensure that all performance requirements are being met. This is expected to include the first 2-3 million registrations.
|
| Paragraph 212: The Home Office have provided us with details of the assumptions on which their costings have been based, on a confidential basis. We are not convinced that the level of confidentiality applied is justified. Cost information is an essential element in determining the value for money of any project. It is of prime importance where expenditure is funded from the public purse and of particular relevance with regard to public sector IT projects which have a history of poor performance and cost-overruns. We are also concerned that the least robust cost estimates appear to relate to the assumptions with the greatest cost-sensitivity, such as the length of enrolment time, the anticipated number of applications requiring further investigation, the cost of card production and the criteria for subsidised cards. Changes to any one of these factors could cause significant increases to the cost of the programme.
| Home Secretary gave details of revised costs in evidence to the Committee on 2 November.
| Accepted. The Committee may find it helpful to refer to the Government's response to a report produced by the LSE, and also a report by KPMG, both of which deal with issues relating to costs.
Both these documents can be found at: www.identitycards.gov.uk
|
| Paragraph 213: The failure to attach a Regulatory Impact Assessment to the draft Bill, or to provide any detailed information on estimated costs and benefits, significantly weakens the basis for pre-legislative scrutiny and the public consultation exercise. This secrecy is all the more regrettable since the case for an identity card system is founded on whether its benefits are proportionate to the problems it seeks to address: a proper cost-benefit analysis is an indispensable element of this. The excuse of commercial sensitivity should not be used to avoid publishing a full Regulatory Impact Assessment with the Bill.
| The RIA was sent to LP Secretariat on 12 November in advance of meeting on 18 November.
| Accepted. A revised RIA was published on 25 May 2005 when the Bill was introduced into the Commons.
On 13 October 2005 the Home Secretary made a statement that the cost issuing a standalone ID Card was expected to be £30.
|
| Paragraph 257: We agree with the CRE that the Bill should be accompanied by a full Race Impact Assessment and that there should be a further Assessment at the time of the move to compulsion.
| A Race Equality Impact Assessment has been prepared for LP Committee.
Further assessments will follow as necessary.
| Accepted. A revised REIA was published on 25 May 2005 when the Bill was introduced.
|
