---

Identity Cards Bill

As my noble friend Lord Northesk highlighted, the term ““head”” does not constitute ““face””. It could just as easily be a picture of the back of the head and shoulders and that would do little to help identify an individual. It would be useful only if there were a permanent, defining feature such as a tattoo, but even those can be removed these days or simply covered up. As such, Amendment No. 87 would replace the word ““head”” with ““face”” to ensure that the individuals in question would actually have to show their faces. Amendment No. 113 would continue this terminology change in Clause 5 (5) (c) so that it would read,"““to allow his face to be photographed””," rather than,"““to allow himself to be photographed””." This consequential would also help narrow what the requirement in Clause 5 (5) allows an individual to do in that it will ensure that the face is photographed but would limit photographs of the rest of the body. As my honourable friend the Member for Harborough highlighted in Committee in another place:"““I do not want to make a flippant point, but the provision does not say ‘a photograph of his face’ . . . I know what the Government intend, but that is not what is in the schedule, so I can imagine that all sorts of fun will be had by a clever fellow””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D; 7/7/05; col. 139.]" However, Her Majesty’s Government did not make this slight but all-important drafting change at the time. Will the Minister outline why they did not make that change? Will they consider it now that the Bill is in Committee in this House? While we are discussing the issue of facial measurements, I will touch briefly on the fallibility of biometric technology. As mentioned at Second Reading, it is estimated that one in six people would not be able to get ID cards because their biometric data may not be properly recordable on the card’s implanted chip. Trials have demonstrated that the biometrics of black, elderly and disabled people have a higher chance of being incorrectly matched despite claims made by the Minister at Second Reading that the technology is improving all the time. Those noble Lords who were here at Second Reading will remember the personal experience of my noble friend Lady Anelay. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate, highlighted during Second Reading that facial characteristics require an update for everyone approximately every five years. The effect of age, as we in this House know, is unfortunately not something that can be held back. Will Her Majesty’s Government clarify whether they will be covering the cost of these essential updates for facial biometrics? What is the process should someone have plastic surgery to their face? Is the onus on them to let the system know? Do they have to provide a doctor’s certificate to show that it is happened? What would happen after an accident resulting in a broken nose or jaw that would alter the facial measurements but not be the fault of the individual? Is the onus, once again on them, at a potentially difficult time, to inform the registrar of the change and arrange to have new photos? Will these costs be personal if it is through no fault of his or her own? Within how many days would they have to present themselves for the updated information? We started this debate on a light note, but there are important practical arrangements that need to be addressed—ones that I am not convinced Her Majesty’s Government have thought through properly.