Annex
TIMELINE OF
THE DECISION
TO USE
THE NIR AS
A POPULATION
REGISTER
Trust and surveillance
In this Annex, I show when decisions were taken
to use the National Identity Register (NIR) of the ID Card as
a population register. Since a population register is a form of
surveillance, consideration of the issues surrounding a population
register illuminates the issues of "trust" and "consent"
which are central to the debate about a surveillance state.
The essential idea behind a population register
is that all public authorities should be able to exchange (ie
update and download) basic personal details via a central repository.
By doing so, the system creates connections between diverse databases
involved in such exchanges. There are obvious efficiency savings
to be made when such data sharing is undertaken (eg the population
register negates the need for a national census). However the
risks are also apparent if the population register is associated
with an audit trail which possesses an ability to enhance the
link between public sector sources of information associated with
each citizen (eg tax, social security, health, police, education)[41]
and which is intended to extend to private sector information
(eg opening a bank account, hire of a car).
The decision to widen the use of the NIR to
include a population register fundamentally changes surveillance
role. No longer is the purpose of the NIR limited to law enforcement
and security where a reason to interfere with private and family
life can be justified in terms of security, crime or immigration.
Because of section 1(4) of the ID Card Act 2006 refers to "the
purpose of securing the efficient and effective provision of public
services", the efficiency of rubbish or council tax collection
could become a legitimate reason for interference.
The security implications are also differentbasic
details from the NIR are potentially accessible to hundreds of
thousands of public servants in any public authority. The civil
penalty of not to keep the address details on the NIR could be
viewed as a civil penalty not to update any public authority record
(eg such authorities could report those who fail to update address
records on the NIR). Who should run such a system also becomes
an issue for legitimate debateshould it be the Home Office
with its emphasis on security and crime, or the Office of National
Statistics (ONS) which has a public administration ethos and is
trusted by the public with respect to the Census? It is important
to note that all these questions (and others) raise valid subjects
of concern which could have (and should have) been debated when
the ID Card Bill was before Parliament and that the ONS had identified
about 30 issues of this nature.[42]
The basis of this analysis in this Annex has
been published in Data Protection and Privacy Practice(July
2006), but it has been updated and fully cross referenced
for the Committee. That updating has unearthed further information
which has not been published.
2002 and 2004The public consultations deny
wide use of ID Card database
The Consultation Document launched by David
Blunkett in April 2002 posed an interesting question: "As
an entitlement card would need to be underpinned by a database
of all UK residents, an issue for consideration is whether this
database should be a national population register... or a new
self standing database".[43]
The answer came in the subsequent document Legislation
on Identity Cards (CM 6178) published in April 2004. Under
a Chapter entitled Wider issues not included in the
draft legislation (my emphasis), it stated that "The
National Identity Register and a population register are separate
but complementary proposals and they serve different purposes"
but the Government was "open to the possibility of including
provisions relating to the creation and operation of a separate
population register within the identity cards legislation"
(Paragraph 3.21).
Paragraph 3.20 of CM 6178 also promised that
further legislation would be needed to establish a population
register; it stated that further work would be undertaken and,
that further developments "will also include public consultation
to explore the issues around public acceptability of the proposal"
so that any new "legislation would also introduce concrete
safeguards for the public".
In summary, the public was informed that the
NIR was to support security mattersthere were overlaps
with a population register but they were separate databases requiring
separate legislation, and that access to the NIR by law enforcement
agencies would be strictly limited.[44]
In relation to a population register, a further public consultation
was promised "to explore the issues around public acceptability
of the proposal".[45]
April 2003Legal advice and the CIP
Between the two public consultations, and prior
to commencement of the Citizen Information Project (CIP), legal
advice was taken ("Final Report, Annex 8: Legal issues").[46]
This advice stated that if the population register contained limited
contact details and if data sharing of these details were to be
legitimised by legislation, then such legislation was unlikely
to breach Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. The advice judged
that any "interference by a public authority" in terms
of Article 8(2) would very likely fall within a state's "margin
of appreciation". This conclusion effectively told Government
that it could lawfully draft data sharing powers, which permitted
basic contact details about individuals to be shared across the
public sector, without consent of the citizen. The data protection
elements related to the First and Second Principles would also
be resolved, as these cover essentially the same ground as Article
8.
The general benefits of the CIP database were
listed in this legal advice. These were described as: "ensuring
that public bodies have accurate information about citizens";
"financial savings to the public purse"; "a reduction
of the potential for fraud"; "speedier location of citizen
records"; "reduced occasions when one citizen is confused
with another"; "reduced occasions when communications
between the state and citizen are sent to out-of-date addresses";
"simplified arrangements for citizens to notify changes of
name and address"; and "improved targeting of public
services and formulation of government policy".
The data items listed in the advice were: "names
including name history"; "addresses including multiple
addresses and address history"; "sex"; "place
of birth"; "date of birth" and "unique identifier
number". The advice did not consider that the NIR would become
the database for the CIP.
This legal advice was obtained before the first
meeting of CIP in February 2004 (CIP meetings involved staff from
many Government Departments and senior personnel from the ID Card
project were always in attendance). The advice contained sufficient
detail to stimulate a public debate on the CIP if the Government
wanted such a debate.
April 2004Draft ID Card Bill published
Clause 1 of the draft ID Card Bill[47]
identified one expansive statutory purpose which enabled information
recorded in the National Identity Register (NIR) "to be disclosed
to persons in cases authorised by or under this Act". Clause
23 of that draft Bill identified a power which allowed the Secretary
to State to authorise disclosures from the NIR, without consent,
for prescribed purposes which were unconnected with terrorism,
national security, crime, taxation, and immigration.
It is clear that these two provisions were drafted
in a sufficiently broad way to provide the legal framework for
the use and disclosure of NIR data for the public administration
purposes which was consistent with the CIP's legal advice obtained
in April 2003. So if the intention was for the NIR, established
by ID Card legislation, to assume CIP functionality, the Government
was clearly in a position to inform the public and Parliament
of this step. For example, during the first half of 2004, the
Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons was studying
the Government's ID Card proposal in detail.
It can be argued that at the text of the draft
Bill studied by the Committee reflected the fact that the CIP
and NIR were seen as separate. In the draft Bill, the general
public sector purposes were "to ensure free public services
are only used by those entitled to them" and "to enable
easier and more convenient access to public service". These
purposes are more limited than the broadly defined "the efficient
and effective delivery of public services" purpose found
in Section 1(4)(e) of the Identity Cards Act 2006.
March-June 2004CIP is separate from NIR
There is further evidence which suggests the
two schemes were originally seen as separate. For example, the
CIP Project Definition[48]
prepared for CIP meetings in Spring 2004 identified around thirty
policy issues to resolve. These included "Who should run
the live register?" and "establishing trust in the organisation
running the population register". Another document prepared
for the CIP Project Board stated that a stand-alone Population
Register Bill was the preferred option.[49]
Other evidence also supports the view that the
CIP and NIR were seen as separate:
29 March 2004[50]
MPs were told "The CIP, the National Identity Register (part
of the Government's proposals for an identity card scheme) and
the NHS data spine are separate but complementary projects".
Although the answer indicated that there could be integration
"in the future" the key information given to Parliament
was they were currently independent.
20 May 2004:[51]
the CIP minutes of that date recorded a general agreement that
a discussion paper According to these minutes, document CIPPB(04)19
provided "a clearer view of the distinction between CIP and
IDC" (IDC=Identity Card).
18 June 2004:[52]
The CIP minutes of this date recorded a Home Office official involved
in the ID Card project stating that he thought "the overlap
between CIP and NIR more apparent than real" because "CIP
functionality does not overlap with the identity card core proposition"
(eg the NIR is not designed for "pushing change of contact
details out to the public sector" or "holding multiple
addresses to support joined up Government"). The minutes
also reported that "Project Board members preferred the stand-alone
option for CIP" and that the Home Office were worried about
"scope creep weighing down the identity cards programme".
June 2004. A second round
of public consultation reassured the public that "The register
will not be open for general access" (CM 6178; "Legislation
on ID Cards", paragraph 2.6) and that `The National Identity
Register and a population register are separate but complementary
proposals and they serve different purposes'" (paragraph
3.21)
Using the NIR as a population register was always
a possibilityMarch 2004
A document made available to CIP personnel in
March 2004[53]
made it clear that "The Home Office has indicated that they
are not averse to including CIP clauses" in an ID Card Bill
because it had "already a slot in the legislative timetable".
However, there were risks of "the Population Register being
closely identified with the ID Card scheme" and that separate
legislation would make it easier "to prohibit police or security
access to the Register". Separate legislation would also
"limit scope-creep" and would "set the Population
Register clearly apart from ID Cards and allow it to be seen as
a benign tool for improving public service". However, the
"Home Office might consider that (separate) CIP legislation,
if contentious, put the ID Cards scheme at risk".
It concluded the decision to use the NIR for
a population register "may become the preferred option if
the Minister makes a decision about CIP in time for CIP powers
to be included in the ID Cards Bill".
10 and 16 September 2004CIP's population
register should be part of NIR
By the end of the summer these dilemmas had
been resolved in favour of using the NIR as a population register
for general public administration purposes. A letter dated 10
September 2004[54]
was sent from the CIP project board to the Chief Secretary of
the Treasury which stated that the merging of CIP into the NIR
would "strengthen the VFM case for ID Cards". It therefore
recommended that "the Home Secretary[55]
be asked to include improving the efficiency and effectiveness
of public services as a purpose of the Identity Card" and
that "the NIR should become the national adult population
register long term (but only if ID Cards become compulsory)".
The letter also explained that the broad concept
of a CIP had gained acceptance with the focus groups but when
the detail of the CIP project were explored by these groups "concerns
are raised that whether the potential benefits could justify the
cost and that this would lead to linkage of sensitive personal
information across government".
The CIP minutes of 16 September 2004 supported
the integration of the NIR and the CIP. These stated that the
"ID Card legislation presents no impediments to the NIR sharing
data with other registers to support their statutory purpose"
and it was recognised that "the CIP position is now reflected
within the ID Card Bill". The minutes also show that the
Home Secretary would know of the change: it stated "Home
Secretary to write to cabinet colleagues in early October to clear
some changes to the IDC Bill. This will include greater clarity
on the statutory purposes of the scheme, including the purpose
of supporting greater public sector efficiency".
24 September 2004Privacy Impact Assessment
completed
A preliminary Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
for the CIP was finalised in September 2004 (published in "Final
Report, Annex 8: Legal issues")[56]
and succinctly identified the benefits of the CIP project as they
were known at this date. Because of the merger of the CIP into
the NIR, these benefits also applied to the ID Card scheme. The
Assessment split the benefits of the CIP into three groups:
Benefits to the individual:
"only have to notify one government department of a change
of address" and "once the citizen has changed contact
details to one department, their responsibility to notify other
departments is relinquished"; an up to date register will
"allow citizens to receive personalised and targeted communications";
and improved services "as it is easier for the service provider
to find the files".
Benefits to the tax payer
and society: "contact details up to date"; facilitate
"internet services"; cost savings through better "tracing
individuals", "reducing fraud"; "ensures every
individual fulfils their obligations to the community" (whatever
this means!); improvements in data sharing.
Benefits to government: keeping
contact details up to date; less waste of resources when tracing
individuals; snapshots of population movements; targeted mailshots
to citizens; better statistical analysis; provides a biographical
footprint (because there is a record of those public bodies which
use the address in delivering services to the individual); and
savings as appointments always have up-to-date details.
Given the Committee's interest in the concept
of a Privacy Impact Assessment, it is noted that the senior civil
servant from the ID Card project is recorded in the minutes[57]
as expressing interest in the PIA for the CIP's population register.
End of September 2004a status summary
By the end of September, in relation to the
use of the NIR for "the purpose of securing the efficient
and effective delivery of public services", the evidence
suggested:
the CIP and NIR were intended
to be fully integrated and CIP functionality was to be implemented
by the powers Ministers were seeking under the ID Card Bill which
was before Parliament;
Ministers decided to use the
ID Cards Bill to implement the integration of CIP and NIR.[58]
that consent of the individual
would not be needed to permit data sharing to achieve CIP benefits
(legal advice; April 2003);
both public consultations on
the ID Card had reassured the public that there would not be general
access to NIR and that there would be another round of consultation
about a population register;
the purposes associated with
the CIP which were to be integrated into the NIR were well defined
and detailed; and
in order to merge the CIP with
the NIR, the ID Card had to be compulsory and Ministers knew
this. (Note: this emphasis is given because I have been unable
to find any Ministerial statement which explained the need
for a compulsory ID Card in terms of implementing CIP functionality).
October 2004Government replied to the Home
Affairs Committee ID Card Report
However, in its official response, MPs on the
Home Affairs Committee were told that the Government) was "no
longer actively exploring plans to develop a separate population
register but rather will be exploring options to improve the quality
and effectiveness of existing registers".[59]
As the NIR is not an existing register, this statement
cannot refer the NIR which had not yet been created.
The Government also told the Committee in its
official response that it believed that "the NIR has the
longer term potential to fulfil some of the functions envisaged
for the national population register". This statement with
its reference to "potential" is difficult to reconcile
with the definite position as recorded in the minutes taken a
month earlier (16 September 2004) which stated that "ID Card
legislation presents no impediments to the NIR sharing data with
other registers to support their statutory purpose" and that
"the CIP position is now reflected within the ID Card Bill".
The Government's reply did not go into detail
as to the nature of these "longer term" functions, even
though these were set out in the legal advice of April 2003 and
in the Privacy Impact Assessment of September 2004. Nor did the
Government reveal that the legal advice stated that consent of
ID card-holders was not needed to permit sharing of contact details
to achieve CIP functionality. Also absent in the Government's
reply was any explanation that powers in the proposed ID Card
legislation were broad enough to legitimise data sharing of a
general administration purpose.
It is interesting to note that Recommendation
38 of the Committee's Report had stated that "The Government
must be clear and open about the issues involved and enable informed
parliamentary and public scrutiny of any decisions". The
Government's response to this recommendation was unequivocal:
"The Government agrees this is an important issue".
28 October 2004 (Col 53WSFirst written
statement about the CIP)
The Government informed Parliament of a "feasibility
study" which found that a "UK population register has
the potential to generate efficiency benefits" and that "if
ID Cards were to become compulsory, it may be more cost effective
to deliver these benefits (efficiency savings) through the NIR".
The statement also does not reflect the status of the project
as described in September 2004 (eg "the CIP position is now
reflected within the ID Card Bill") and is very low key.
Its use of words such as "feasibility", "potential",
"if" and "may" makes the statement less definite
than the decisions which had been taken.
There was a promise of a further statement after
June 2005 when a "second stage of project definition"
was completed. This also reinforces the idea that matters have
not yet been determined.
29 November 2004Regulatory Impact Assessment
published
Home Office Minister, Des Browne MP, signed
a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) which was produced to provide
Parliament with details which related to the impact of the ID
Card Bill. The section of the RIA dealing with "more efficient
and effective delivery of public services"[60]
described the use of the ID Card to achieve savings. It did not
refer to the fact that far more efficiency savings were to be
realised by sharing the personal data in the NIR. The RIA did
not reflect the CIP minutes of 16 September 2004 which noted that
"the CIP position is now reflected within the ID Card Bill".
The RIA did not even illustrate the range of benefits to individuals,
government and society which were specified in the Privacy Impact
Assessment (dated September 2004).
Similarly, paragraph 26 of the RIA (dealing
with longer term benefits) did not mention the use of the NIR
for public administration as described in earlier CIP minutes.
It tentatively suggested that the National Identity Registration
Number "should the card scheme become compulsory" could
"provide the means to make more fundamental improvements
in the delivery of Government services" but that this step
was "not part of the immediate business justification of
the scheme". In addition, "the ID Cards scheme could
provide a basis for people to notify changes of personal details
such as address, only once", but this is "not currently
costed as part of the functions of the Identity Cards scheme".
(Note: as this function was specifically outlined as part of the
CIP in the legal advice of April 2003, it is difficult to imagine
that some cost estimates did not exist).
MarchApril 2005 CIP benefits form fifth
of ID Card business case
The CIP minutes of 18 March 2005 identified
"substantial CIP related benefits (address sharing benefits)
within HO ID Cards outline business case, amounting to around
one fifth of the total". Progress had been such that there
was to be a "phased reduction of the CIP team". The
Home Office representative stated that she "was able to re-assure
the board that there were no anticipated issues with the Identity
Cards Bill or the efficiency and effectiveness clause that is
relevant to CIP".
In addition, the CIP role was being augmented
by the e-government agenda. The representative from the Treasury
stated "Working with the Identity Cards programme to establish
how Identity Cards could be used to help meet e-government needs"
for example "Scoping the issues of e-authentication with
service owners and Chief Executives" and "Development
of a strategic approach to identity in government including a
review of business processes and provision of a risk management
framework for e-service delivery in a business sense". The
Crosby Review (expected in the summer) could further widen the
use of the NIR.
The decision to have wider use of the NIR was
in time to have been captured by Labour's manifesto for the 2005
General Electionespecially as 20% of the ID Card's business
case was being justified on CIP's functionality. Labour's Manifesto
itself stated that ID Cards would be established to assist the
authorities in purposes connected with crime, terrorism, illegal
employment and immigration. There was no mention of the public
administration purpose or data sharing of contact details based
on the NIR, or that registration on the NIR had to be compulsory
(with the implication that the ID Card had to be compulsory) to
achieve 20% of the benefits of the ID Card scheme.
The CIP minutes of 15 April 2005 stated that
"up to 30 tactical data sharing opportunities (for the NIR)
have been identified". These 30 data sharing opportunities
have not yet been made public (unlike the 17 benefits which were
identified in September 2004 but only made public in April 2006).
25 May 2005Updated Regulatory Impact Assessment
published
After the General Election, on May 25, the ID
Card Bill was re-introduced into Parliament; the Bill specified
the "the purpose of securing the efficient and effective
provision of public services" and provided wide ranging disclosure
powers (in line with the legal advice of April 2003). Home Office
Minister (Tony McNulty MP) signed an "updated version"
of the Bill's Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) to inform subsequent
Parliamentary debate on the Bill.
The section on "more efficient and effective
delivery of public services" was almost identical with the
RIA published 29 November 2004. Although the RIA was promoted
as "an updated version" it still did not reflect the
use of the NIR to achieve the functionality described in the CIP
minutes and background papers (eg minutes of 24 September 2004)
and the "30 tactical data sharing opportunities" which
had been identified in April 2005 were not mentioned in the RIA.
It is also curious that an RIA, which contains many figures which
relate to the ID Card, did not state that 20% of the ID Card's
business case depended on the merger of CIP into the NIR, or that
compulsory entry of contact personal data into the NIR would be
needed to implement CIP functionality.
24 June 2005Final meeting of the CIP projectevidence
from the minutes
The final CIP minutes of 24 June 2005 showed
that contact details from the NIR would be widely shared (upload
and download) and that the Home Office had assumed responsibility
for implementing CIP functionality. The minutes stated that the
Home Office would have:
"the responsibility for
delivering an adult population register that enables basic contact
data held on NIR to be downloaded to other public sector stakeholders"
(The "Treasury and Cabinet Office should ensure that NIR
delivers CIP functionality as planned");
"the responsibility for
ensuring from around 2021 basic contact data held by stakeholders
can be up-loaded to the NIR"; and
to "design the take-up
profile of the NIR to be such that population statistics can be
realised for the 2021 census".
The CIP's final report which was prepared at
this time (but not published until the ID Card Act 2006 had received
Royal Assent) stated that secondary legislation (which is in the
ID Card Bill) will allow "public services to be provided
with NIR data without the need to obtain specific citizen consent"(page
17). The CIP final report also provided examples of how NIR data
could be used (which presumably are a sub-set of the "30
tactical data sharing opportunities" identified on 15 April
2005).
These opportunities were:
"DWP targeting the 300,000
eligible citizens not currently claiming pensions";
Taxation authorities "contacting
employees required to complete self assessment";
Managing passport application
peaks by getting customers to apply early;
"DfES tracing children
at risk via their guardians' addresses";
"Local councils collecting
debt from citizens who have moved to another authority";
"NHS targeting specific
citizen groups for screening campaigns"; and
"reducing the overall administrative
burden on bereaved people".
As the ID Card Bill was commencing its Committee
stage in Parliament, there was no barrier to allowing debate to
include the new responsibilities of the Home Office as described
above.
On 13 June 2005, the Parliamentary Research
Department of the House of Commons Library published its 58 page
research document into the ID Card Bill. These research documents
were produced to inform MPs impartially about the issuesas
with the RIA, this research document into ID Cards did not contain
details of the decision to merge the CIP into NIR functionality
as described above.
30 June 2005CIP staff wants Parliament
to be informed
A draft list of recommendations were prepared
by civil servants for the CIP Project Board ("Submission
to Ministersdraft")[61]
to consider to send to ministers; the list showed that CIP officials
were very aware of the privacy and constitutional issues.
Paragraph 2 of the draft recommendations began:
"UrgentHome Office believe there would be advantages
in making an announcement before Parliament rises on 21 July so
that the Government's intention to use the ID Cards register in
this way is confirmed while the ID Cards Bill is still being debated".
The reason for this is explained in paragraph 17: "Home Office
believe there would be advantages in making an announcement before
Parliament rises on 21 July" as "that would confirm
the Government's intention to use the ID Cards register in this
way while the ID Cards Bill is still being debated and so avoid
subsequent criticism, say from the Information Commissioner, that
the ID Cards register is subject to `function creep'".
13 July 2005Ministers left to decide about
informing Parliament
The Project Board sent different recommendations
to Ministers ("Submissions to Ministers") and the explicit
30 June text mentioned above was dropped in favour of a simple
statement: "it is in the public domain that CIP is due to
report to Ministers this summer but no date has been given for
a Ministerial response". However, a draft letter prepared
for Chief Secretary of the Treasury to distribute to Cabinet colleagues
sought responses by 7 September 2005 as "I intend to make
an announcement after Parliament returns" (in October 2005).
A draft "Written Ministerial Statement"
to Parliament was included as Annex B of this package. This contained
sufficient detail to stimulate an informed debate about the merger
of the CIP with the NIR if the statement was issued. In the event,
no statement was made to Parliament in October 2005; however the
draft Statement delivered in Annex B is not significantly different
from the Statement which eventually appeared in 18 April 2006
after the ID Card Bill had become law.
The Chief Secretary of the Treasury at this
time was Des Browne MP who had also signed the Regulatory Impact
Assessment on 29 November 2004, which related to an earlier version
of the ID Card Bill. It is not known whether his detailed knowledge
of the ID Card scheme played an influential part in the decision
not to inform Parliament.
19 July 2005ID Card Bill Committee stage
(Commons)
In Committee, the Home Office Minister avoided
reference to the fact that powers in the Bill were needed to ensure
integration of CIP's wide data sharing functionality into the
NIR (eg as identified by 24 September 2004). Instead, explanations
were provided in narrow terms; for example "In fraud investigations
it would be sensible, from its point of view, for it (a local
authority benefits inspectorate) to have access to the register"
or that "The fire and ambulance services could also be beneficiaries
of access when verifying identity against the register following
a major accident",[62]
20 Jul 2005Response to written question,
column 1783W
The following written question illuminates what
was to be the "denial line" adopted by Government with
respect to the use of the NIR for public administration purposes
(until the ID Cards Act received Royal Assent in March 2006).
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State
for the Home Department if he will introduce an amendment to modify
the Identity Card Bill so that personal information from the national
register associated with the identity card cannot be used by any
public authority for the purpose of the efficient and effective
delivery of public services without the consent of the identity
card holder; and if he will make a statement. [13169]
Andy Burnham: The Government will not
introduce such an amendment. The Bill as drafted only allows information
to be used without a person's consent by specified public authorities
named on the face of the Bill, or others subsequently approved
by Parliament. These arrangements will be subject to independent
oversight.
5 and 18 October 2005(Third Reading debate)
There were two further Parliamentary opportunities
for Ministers to refer to the decision to use the NIR as a basis
for the CIP functionality. On 5 October,[63]
MPs were told that "Direct access to information held on
the National Identity Register by anyone outside those responsible
for administering the scheme will not be possible, only requests
for information can be made by third parties. In the vast majority
of cases, verification of information on the Register will only
be possible with the person's consent". During the Third
Reading debate on the Bill, on 18 October, the Home Secretary[64]
(Charles Clarke) reinforced this message in the House of Commons:
"What the Bill allows is for information to be provided from
the register either with the consent of the individual or without
that consent in strictly limited circumstances in accordance with
the law of the land".
It is a challenge to reconcile these two statements,
and the answer to Mr Cohen's PQ, with the letter sent to the Home
Secretary in September 2004 or the 24 June 2005 minutes which
envisaged that, without the need for consent of the individual
concerned, "basic contact data held on NIR to be downloaded
to other public sector stakeholders" or for "basic contact
data held by stakeholders can be up-loaded to the NIR".
24 October 2005Joint Committee on Human
Rights
The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) published
a report which questioned the access to NIR data via wide ranging
powers in the ID Card legislation.[65]
It reported that "We consider however that there remains
a risk that a number of provisions of the Bill could result in
disclosure of information in a way that disproportionately interferes
with private life in violation of Article 8". These comments
reflect Recommendation 60 of the Home Affairs Select Committee
Report into Identity Cards which stated that "It is unacceptable
that basic questions about the degree of access to the NIR should
be left to secondary legislation".
Both these comments were targeted at the kind
of disclosures that were the subject of the legal advice dated
April 2003 and were eventually published in April 2006. It is
curious that although the Government saw no problem in publishing
this legal advice in April 2006, the advice was not made available
to inform the JCHR's scrutiny of the ID Card Bill in October 2005some
six months earlier (or indeed the Home Affairs Select Committee).
9 November 2005The Delegated Powers and
Regulatory Reform Committee
The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory
Reform Committee, in its Fifth Report[66]
on the Identity Cards Bill, followed other Select Committees and
expressed concern at the wide ranging powers in the Bill. In their
evidence to the Committee,[67]
Ministers did not explain the need for these powers so that the
NIR can possess CIP data sharing functionality. Instead they explained
that these wide data sharing powers were needed to cope with the
exceptional or obscure emergency situation:
104 ..."The more obvious recipients
of information from the Register are dealt with explicitly in
the preceding clauses, but it is regarded as essential to have
a reserve power to use in the public interest if it should be
necessary. For example, it is conceivable that the power could
be used to specify public authorities that are not Government
departments such as the emergency services or local authorities
for specified purposes".
Note the use of the phrase "it is conceivable"far
more reaching decisions had been already been conceived months
earlier (eg see 24 June 2005).
16 Jan 2006Lords Committee Stage: no explanation
of CIP functionality
Baroness Anelay of St Johns successfully moved
an amendment which replaced the words "securing the efficient
and effective provision of public services" with "preventing
illegal or fraudulent access to public services". This amendment
removed the legal basis for the integration of CIP with the NIR
(eg as decided in September 2004).
In her attempt to defeat the amendment in the
Lords, the Minister did not take the opportunity to expound the
virtues of data sharing or explain that 20% of the business case
for the ID Card depended on the merger of the CIP with NIR. Instead,
the Minister explained the phrase "securing the efficient
and effective provision of public services" in terms of the
use of the Card whereas in practice, most of the efficiency
gains of the CIP will depend on the use of the database.
"We should not limit the use of identity
cards in helping to deliver better public services. It is not
just a question of combating fraudulent use of public services;
it is also about helping to transform those services. We believe
that the public will want the introduction of identity cards to
be used as a way of helping public services to deliver quicker
and better services. Why should we have to keep filling in different
forms with details of our name and address? If production of an
identity card when seeking access to a public service can confirm
our identity quickly and easily, surely we should be aiming to
provide that. If producing an identity card enables address details
to be confirmed, that will help both the public service and the
applicant for that service".(16 January 2006: Column 478)
The amendment was overturned by the House of
Commons (13 February 2006). There was no Commons debate on the
matter because of a guillotine motion, used by the Government,
limited debate on Lords' Amendments. This fact alone, in itself,
raises important issues of Parliamentary scrutiny.
March 2006a game of Parliamentary ping-pong
The House of Lords and Commons disagreed over
the interpretation of Labour's manifesto which promised "We
will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints,
backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on
a voluntary basis as people renew their passports". The House
of Lords said that this meant that people should be able to choose
whether to obtain an ID Card with the passport; the Government
said that as people volunteered to get a passport, that the ID
Card could be issued to passport applicants. The result was a
dispute and the ID Cards Bill ping-ponged five times between both
Houses of Parliament.
Eventually, a compromise was proposed by Lord
Armstrong, where individuals did not have to have an ID Card if
they applied for a passport before 2010, but their details would
be entered into the NIR. Accepting the amendment, the Home Secretary
told Parliament: "Lord Armstrong's amendment preserves the
integrity of the national identity register. It ensures that the
details of all applicants for designated documents will still
be entered on it. That will mean that they will be afforded the
protection that that will provide from identity theft. It will
also provide the wider benefits to society by ensuring that attempts
by people to establish multiple identities are more easily detected".[68]
The minutes of April 2005 stated that the CIP
formed one-fifth of ID Card's business case so long as entry of
citizen details into the NIR is compulsory. This had been known
for almost a yearhowever, this reason was not proffered
by the Home Secretary in his explanation for accepting Lord Armstrong's
amendment.
18 April 2006Government announced NIR and
CIP merger
At the end of March 2006, the ID Card Bill gained
Royal Assent without the merger of the NIR and CIP projects being
raised. On 18 April[69]
an announcement was made to Parliament by means of a written statement
which explained that the CIP project had wound up. The April statement
is not significantly different from the draft sent by the CIP
Board on 13 July 2005some nine months earlier. There was
a comprehensive disclosure of CIP documents on its website which
explained in detail the new functionality of the NIR.
15 May 2006Prime Minister promotes "identity
management"
In an open letter, Tony Blair promoted the widespread
public administration use of the NIR database. He told Home Secretary
John Reid[70]
"Eighth, I am keen to maximise the benefits of ID management
(ie all transactions where a declaration of identity is required),
including the introduction of ID cards by 2009. The full range
of activity relating to identity management needs to be co-ordinated
across government to maximise benefits to the citizen. I would
like you to identify a Minister to focus closely on this and the
agenda across Whitehall". Identity management also includes
the e-government agenda.
The minutes of this project also shows that
there are early links to the use of the NIR in relation to the
Government's policy of Identity Management. Transformational Government
and e-Gov initiatives (eg see the minutes of the CIP project around
March and April 2005). The Crosby Review could add to the use
of the NIR in this respect.
October 2006national identity management
confirms use of NIR on the lines of the CIP
The term "national identity management"
is being used by Government to represent the wider use of the
NIR (eg to include a population register as envisaged in the Citizen's
Information Project (CIP)). This can be shown by reference to
the government's first "Section 37 report" on
the likely costs of the UK Identity Cards Scheme (published in
October 2006). Page 7&8 of this report on ID Card costs (at
bottom) reads:
"Firstly, it (use of the
NIR as a population register) would allow organisations to be
more proactivepeople could be contacted before their passport
needs to be renewed; when employees need to fill out self assessment
tax returns; targeting 300,000 citizens who are not claiming state
pensions or those in particular age ranges who are eligible for
health screening; allowing authorities to collect debt from citizens
who have moved to another area; and reducing the overall administrative
burden on bereaved people"
This can be compared with the list published
on the first page of the Citizen Information Project's final report
given to Ministers in June 2005[71]
The opportunities of wider use of the NIR for CIP purposes are
listed as including:
managing passport application
peaks by getting customers to apply early;
taxation authorities "contacting
employees required to complete self assessment";
"DWP targeting the 300,000
eligible citizens not currently claiming pensions";
"Local councils collecting
debt from citizens who have moved to another authority";
and
"reducing the overall administrative
burden on bereaved people".
March 2007NIR to be used as a population
register
According to Home Office Ministers,[72]
as "the National Identity Register is intended eventually
to contain up-to-date identity information for all United Kingdom
residents aged 16 and over. This will include name, age, address,
nationality and biometric information, such as photograph and
fingerprints. The National Identity Register will then be able
to serve as a United Kingdom adult population register".
It is interesting to note that one of the original
Government consultations[73]
stated that legislation would be needed to establish a population
register and that "this stage will also include public consultation
to explore the issues around public acceptability of the proposal".
This promised public consultation has yet to occur and this subject
has, as far as I can assess, could have and should have formed
part of Parliament's scrutiny of the ID Card Act 2006.
41 See Sections 1(5)(i) and 3(4) of the Identity
Cards Act 2006 which shows that any reference to an entry in the
NIR will leave such a footprint in the audit trail. Back
42
CIPPB(04)(02) "Citizen Information Project: project definition
stage-aims and policy issues" dated February 2004 on http://www.gro.gov.uk/cip/Definition/ProjectBoardPapers/index.asp Back
43
Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud, Cm 5557, paragraph 2.40. Back
44
For example paragraph 3.29 of CM 5557 states that "the
Government would want to see a full debate on this point and seek
views on what safeguards there should be. For example, whether
access to the database in these circumstances should be governed
by a warrant applied for on a case-by-case basis". The question
posed of the public was whether law enforcement agencies should
have access to the central register "in closely prescribed
circumstances" such as "national security or very serious
crimes". Back
45
Paragraph 3.20 of CM 6178 ("Legislation on Identity Cards"). Back
46
Annex 8 is on http://www.gro.gov.uk/cip/Definition/FinalReportAnnexes/index.asp Back
47
Published in April 2004 in CM 6178. Back
48
CIPPB(04)(02) "Citizen Information Project: project definition
stage-aims and policy issues" dated February 2004 on http://www.gro.gov.uk/cip/Definition/ProjectBoardPapers/index.asp Back
49
CIPP(04)12-"Towards a Legal Strategy" on http://www.gro.gov.uk/cip/Definition/ProjectBoardPapers/index.asp Back
50
Answer to PQ 163155, 29 March 2004. Back
51
From http://www.gro.gov.uk/cip/Definition/ProjectBoardMinutes/index.asp Back
52
From http://www.gro.gov.uk/cip/Definition/ProjectBoardMinutes/index.asp
(Minutes confusingly posted under the date of 21 July). Back
53
CIPP(04)12-"Towards a Legal Strategy" on http://www.gro.gov.uk/cip/Definition/ProjectBoardPapers/index.asp Back
54
Citizen Information Project: CIP progress report-10 September
2004 on http://www.gro.gov.uk/cip/Definition/ProjectBoardPapers/index.asp Back
55
David Blunkett MP was Home Secretary till mid-December 2004,
then from that date, Charles Clarke MP. Back
56
Annex 8 is on http://www.gro.gov.uk/cip/Definition/FinalReportAnnexes/index.asp Back
57
The minutes of 25 November 2005. Back
58
see CIPPB(04)12-reference 53. Back
59
Paragraph 44 of CM 6359. Back
60
Paragraphs 64-72 of the Assessment. Back
61
CIPPB(05)45 dated 21 June 2005. Back
62
19 July, ninth sitting morning, Column 363 (Standing Committee
Hansard). Back
63
Hansard, 5 October 2005, Column 2845W. Back
64
Hansard, October 2005 (Column 799). Back
65
Joint Committee On Human Rights (First Report), section 4, session
2005-06. Back
66
Session 2005-06, 10 November. Back
67
Appendix 1 of the above report. Back
68
Hansard, 29 Mar 2006: Column 1000. Back
69
Hansard, 53WS, 18 April 2006. Back
70
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page9461.asp Back
71
See 24 June 2005 timeline entry "Final meeting of the CIP
project". Back
72
Answer to Mr Hoban's PQ 127212, 13 March 20. Back
73
"Legislation on Identity Cards: A consultation", paragraph
3.20 (CM 6178). Back
|