---

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I am not that unfit. The amendment simply adds the single word ““external”” in Clause 1(7)(e) before the words, ““physical characteristics””. The clause would then state that,"““references to an individual’s identity””," relating to subsection (5), were references to,"““external physical characteristics of his that are capable of being used for identifying him””." The problem as we see it—because other names are added to the amendment—is that Schedule 1 and Clause 43, a definition clause, do not refer to physical characteristics at all. Both refer to ““biometric”” particulars. The definition in Clause 43 states that,"““‘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””." In effect, the definition of ““biometric information”” in Clause 43 includes that magic word ““external”” in relation to characteristics that I want to see added in    this subsection for consistency purposes. In addition, given that there is no direct cross reference between Clause 1, the determinative clause, and Schedule 1, which has to be within Clause 1, we could improve the Bill by making it abundantly clear that reference in Clause 1 to physical characteristics is to external characteristics only. Otherwise there is a danger that in some future time another government may give a different interpretation—although not this Government, because they have made it clear what they mean with respect to ““physical characteristics”” in Schedule 1, and I do not for a second doubt that they will stick to that. But I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, as a lawyer, will agree with me that Clause 1(7), when it talks of physical characteristics, is capable in future of being construed as including non-external characteristics; it could include internal physical characteristics. That might be from X-rays or internal body fluids. Although it goes on in Clause 1(7) to say,"““physical characteristics . . . that are capable of being used for identifying him””," under laboratory conditions, analysis of internal physical characteristics or body fluids, which are physical characteristics, would render such internal matter capable of being used to identify the individual. In drafting the amendment, I wondered whether one might not use the word ““visible”” physical characteristics. One might have got round the point by talking about ““solid physical characteristics””, to avoid the prospect of DNA samples, for example. The Minister made it absolutely clear what the Government thought about that. However, I repeat, this should not be one of those cases in which glosses in debate, made by a Minister on behalf of the Crown, could be taken to affect the interpretation of those particular words when the words are—as I believe they are here—capable of an independent definition and use. That is all a long way round to say that we on these Benches would like this part of the Bill bolted and barred, because the issue is very important, and a lot of energy has been devoted by all of us to ensure that what goes on the national identity register is limited to what we hope and expect to go on. The only other thing that I want to say is that the Information Commissioner has been extremely forthright in his report on the Bill about characteristics, about which this could be said to be one. I refer, too, to the letter that the Minister kindly sent round to us all last week, which took up a series of points that were raised in Committee on 12, 14 and 19 December. On the issue that we are discussing under this amendment, which I raised on 12 December in col. 988, the Minister said in her letter:"““Physical characteristics that are capable of being used for identification may include for example reference to a person’s having distinctive scars, or a missing hand or leg . . . However, this would only apply to visible physical characteristics which are capable of helping to identify a person, and therefore illnesses and internal physical characteristics would again be excluded. There is also no power in the Bill that could be used to require a person to provide a DNA sample””." As I have endeavoured to explain, I do not agree with her that interpretation of ““physical characteristics”” excludes internal physical characteristics. If, and insofar as, there is doubt about this—and I believe that there has to be—it is easily resolved by adding this word. That seems to me uncontentious, to boot, and I hope that the Government will be inclined to accept it. I beg to move.