| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I hesitate to rise again, but my noble friend has raised some ancillary issues which come up where a particular card might help. Not least, there are the backpackers and the young who, when travelling around the world on their own, may not have the same responsibility as the older generation. Undoubtedly, it would be beneficial if any card that they were carrying had additional information on next of kin, and perhaps other identifying marks of some importance.
However, when we look at how information changes and for how long cards should exist, we must look at all the changes that take place in people's lives such as the changes in name. My noble friend makes quite an important point. Can the Government answer it?
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1013
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, surely the card cannot be valid beyond the life of the cardholder. There is no identity to validate once you've popped it. However, nothing about the Bill would surprise me.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have a feeling that we dealt in Committee with much of the detail to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, referred. If I miss something, I shall be more than happy to drop a note to those noble Lords who have participated in this mini-debate. The amendment would make the identity card valid for the life of the cardholder, rather than for a period to be decided by Parliament through regulation. I understand that it is designed to draw out more information from us, and we will do our best to answer the points in due course.
It is currently intended that the identity card for a British national will be valid for 10 years, in line with the validity period for passports issued by the UK Passport Service. Generally, we take the view that to alter that to a lifelong validity would be impractical and undermine or damage the intended operation of the scheme. A person's characteristics do not stay static; they change over time. It is important that document issuers ensure that information relating to a person remains accurate and can be verified periodically. The practice of issuing documents such as passports with a time-limited validity period reflects that; so should the issuing of the identity card.
The advent of biometrics, which may naturally change over a person's life, underlines the need for a limited validity card so that biometrics can be recorded to ensure the continuing accuracy of biometric verification. Additionally, identity cards for foreign nationals are intended also to serve as residence permits. So, a lifelong validity period, as sought in the amendment, would not be appropriate in our view. The card's validity should cease once the individual's leave to remain in the United Kingdom runs out.
The identity card programme has been through, and completed, an extensive market sounding and card durability survey with leading international card and chip manufacturers. The manufacturers confirmed that a card life of 10 years is viable and provided evidence where they have guaranteed that card life. Studies by the Communication Electronics Security Group have also demonstrated that the durability of card security features remains over a 10-year period.
As for death and ID cards, there is no requirement on a person who has died to notify their own death or, indeed, for his next of kin to notify the Secretary of State of it. I recall making that point at an earlier stage. The register will retain data on deceased people, primarily to prevent fraudulent use of a dead person's identity. We discussed, at an earlier stage, times when that has been the case in some celebrated past acts of criminality. There is no need for an ID card to survive its holder. It will be cancelled, and the Secretary of State has power to require its surrender under Clause 13.
On the point about keeping things as family heirlooms, we often keep things from our past. I recently came across the papers from a deceased
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1014
relative from the last world war, which included some rather sad pieces of paper and some interesting documents. I know that my mother kept her identity card from the war period. People are free to do that, but there is no obligation on people to keep documents for longer than they are required.
As for time capsules, under Clause 13(3), it would be possible for the next of kin of an ID card holder who had died to seek the permission of the Secretary of State for them to retain the cancelled card, as now happens with passports.
7 pm
Another couple of points may have been raised that I have not covered relating to paying for renewal. In most of the circumstances anticipated by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, it would be expected that a payment would be made for renewal. It would depend very much on what had happened—whether the card had been lost or stolen or whatever—whether the replacement card had to be paid for by a small charge. We intend to make it as easy as possible for people to replace lost or stolen documentation. I hope that, having heard that, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I have a question that takes us back to the life of cards. Your old passport was sent back to you with the corner cut off. I have kept all of mine; I still have my identity card from the war on which, when I have not been able to get a second passport, I have managed to travel. The Minister talks about 10 years of life. In general, British bank cards last for three years; French ones for two years; German ones for two. To my knowledge, no one has ever suggested that a card that fulfils a useful function could have a life as long as 10 years. That is a doubtful statement.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I respect the point made by the noble Lord. When we were preparing for the Bill and this issue came up by way of general discussion, I would have agreed with him, but robust testing and reputable scientific research from biometric experts underpin the assumption that the re-recording of biometrics every 10 years is sufficient for the identity card scheme.
We are happy with the science behind the scheme. We think that it will be sufficiently robust to work for that period. Studies conducted by the Communication and Electronics Study Group has clearly demonstrated that the card will be durable. That durability will cover the card's security features during that period.
However, we are in a fast-moving field of information science and technology. We must respect the advice that we have been given. There is no doubt that things have changed since we began to use such pieces of plastic, when the bank recalled them after two or three years. I remember that one of my bank cards
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1015
lasted for about five or six years and I was very impressed by that and thought that I was getting quite a good service.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the card is combustible, so that I can be cremated with my identity card?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is very tempting that the noble Lord suggests that he might be combustible, but what he chooses to do with his identity card on his demise is entirely up to him.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I believe that the debate in Committee was on the register; we did not probe the validity of the card then. However, we have had some clarification from the Minister, for which I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seccombe moved Amendment No. 52G:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would replace the wording in subsection (3)(d) so that the text would read: "An ID card issued to an individual . . . remains the property of the person to whom it is issued".
The reasoning behind the amendment is twofold. First, it is to probe exactly to whom the Bill refers. Will it mean the Secretary of State or the head of the designated document authority, which may vary depending on which document it is—for passports, the passport office; for drivers licences, the DVLA; and so on? Secondly, and more importantly, it is to safeguard against the withdrawal of a card by the state. As ever, the role of this House is to scrutinise legislation to uphold the British constitution.
Legislation such as this raises difficult questions of civil liberties versus national security. However, we must always remember that what we put in place now will be used by future governments. There is never a guarantee that a different government will use the powers in the way envisaged today or that we are assured that they will be used today. Making the card the property of the individual whose data it contains will help protect against future misuse by an unscrupulous state apparatus, should it occur. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |