Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I want to return briefly to fingerprints. The sound of the word "fingerprints" produces an unpleasant note of possible criminal
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 987
 
behaviour and the rest. I want to ask two simple questions. First, who will benefit from the inclusion of fingerprints on the identity card; and, secondly, of what possible use will that inclusion be to the owner of the fingerprints? Even enthusiasts for this Bill, such as the noble Lord, Lord Gould, would hardly claim that a fingerprint was a badge of honour to be boasted about. It is nothing of the kind. The Bill has done much to reawaken my suspicion of the Government's appetite for information. It seems completely beyond the reach of satisfaction. I hope that the Minister will be able to convince us that the Government have good grounds for including this requirement.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that we have good grounds for including it. The whole point of using biometrics is so that we can accurately identify the individual who is to be named either in the passport or in the identity card. It is important that we get that right.

In debating the previous clause, we spoke about biometrics and I emphasised the background against which the data will be taken. The biometric data will be used as a confirmation of the other details that will be taken when the person is interviewed to ensure that they are who they say they are. That will then be securely recorded so that thereafter that identity cannot be stolen or taken away.

Ten fingerprints are needed to facilitate a unique record—that is, one of many—because a check that aims to ensure multiple enrolments will not occur. Two fingerprints are not sufficient for this purpose. The US-VISIT system is expected to move to more than two fingerprints as the size of its database increases. Already the benefits of taking 10 fingerprints is greatly appreciated and taken on board. It is not therefore right that the US will stick to two fingerprints, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, may have been told. In framing the new system, we must therefore look at the best available knowledge and data and anticipate it so that we can ensure that our system has the integrity we will need.

I turn to the individual amendments. Amendment No. 183 would prevent biometrics, other than fingerprints, being confirmed on a check with consent under Clause 14. Biometric information cannot be provided from the register under that power. Subsection (2)(g) limits the information to confirmation that the biometric information provided coincides with the information on the register. As I say, take the other details and the biometrics will confirm the identity.

Amendments Nos. 90, 110 and 171 would completely remove the reference to fingerprints. Fingerprints are a type of biometric information, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, finds them slightly uncomfortable because they have previously been associated with criminal activity and a way of identifying a person. However, they are important because they are a way of accurately identifying people. The noble Lord is right to say that technically we need not have mentioned them separately, but the
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 988
 
Bill specifically mentions fingerprints, iris recognition and photographs, to make our present intentions clear.

The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made a point on the inclusion of irises as external characteristics. All the physical characteristics specified in the Bill can be viewed externally. One can see the iris by external observation. We have made clear that physical characteristics are external characteristics because the Bill does not include any internal element or organ that would have to be examined by use of an X-ray or anything of that sort. It is only what can be observed externally. The combination of Clauses 1(7) and 43 and the schedule makes that clear. The noble Lord will remember that, at one stage in the other place, there was concern about whether we were limiting the characteristics to biometrics and external features, or whether DNA would be included. We wanted to make absolutely clear that it was external identifiers only. That was the reason for the combination of Clauses 1 and 43 and the schedule.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My concern is that Clause 1(7)(e), which deals with physical characteristics, is unqualified by reference to externality. Therefore, one could, in theory, use the provision under Clause 3(5) to include internal physical characteristics or X-ray information in Schedule 1.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not think one could, because Clause 43(1), which gives the definition of biometric information, constrains the general interpretation to be applied:

"'biometric information', in relation to an individual, means data about his external characteristics, including, in particular, the features of an iris or any other part of the eye".

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: That does not meet my concern because Clause 43 deals with the definition of biometric information and that term occurs only in Schedule 1; there is no reference to it in Clause 1. I maintain that "physical characteristics" in Clause 1 is not confined by the biometric definition in Clause 43. Perhaps this is an argument that should not be perpetuated at this moment, but if, on reflection, the Minister agrees with me, will she consider an amendment to Clause 1 to make clear that the argument she is now advancing is the one intended?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I will certainly look at it, but I do not think that it is a difficulty. I am relatively sure that parliamentary counsel will tell me that the three elements have to be read together and, therefore, the position is absolutely clear. I am more than happy to consider this because I am clear that the Government intend that only external characteristics are required and we believe that that is delivered by the Bill. We will look again to ensure that that is the proper construction and, if any further clarity is needed, I shall be happy to look at it. I do not think that there is any difficulty, but I understand the noble Lord's concern.
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 989
 

Amendments Nos. 90, 110 and 117 deal with fingerprint issues. Fingerprint evidence was first used in court to convict an offender as long ago as 1902, more than 100 years ago—a date which I am sure will please the noble Earl. To reiterate, it is intended that we will capture the 13 biometrics—that is the 10 fingerprints, the two irises and the face. Amendments Nos. 90A and 111 would limit any fingerprint biometric recorded on the national identity register and on application to index fingers only. A scheme the size of the United Kingdom ID card scheme would not have a high likelihood of success if only two fingers were used. More are required to differentiate between people with the degree of confidence we require when a large population is involved.

4.15 pm

I think we have already dealt with the issues regarding the EU and the ICAO requirements. They are, as the Committee will know, minimum common standards. The introduction of these requirements and the introduction of initiatives, such as the US-visit project, may be initial drivers for the identity card scheme, but, as I tried to indicate earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, we are trying to find the best model we can to ensure that it has the longest lifespan and the greatest degree of accuracy. Therefore, we are looking now to find that. We wish to approach it with our 13 biometric identifiers because that is the best information we have at the moment.

I hope that with those responses noble Lords will feel reassured and that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Northesk: Once again I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. As with my previous amendment, it is an issue that sparks a great deal of concern. Indeed, I share the concern about how it could be said that the Government are gold-plating agreed international standards in this area. Many of us would prefer that fewer biometric identifiers were being considered for the scheme. But, in terms, my judgment is that there is consensus that all the biometric identifiers to be used by the scheme should be stated explicitly in the Bill.

That tempts me to believe that paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 would merit amendment on Report to constrain it absolutely to those biometric identifiers that the Minister has indicated represent the Government's best thinking at present—that is to say, fingerprints, iris and face. Other noble Lords might prefer to go even further than that. Without doubt, we will have to return to this issue on Report, but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 90A and 91 not moved.]