Proceeding contribution from Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 23 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Identity Cards Bill 2005-06.
Identity Cards Bill
My Lords, Clause 8(2)(b) includes in the definition of an ID card that data should be included on the card which will enable it to support a number of possible verification services considered for the identity card scheme. I appreciate that Clause 8(2)(b) may appear long-winded, particularly in contrast to the short, sharper wording of Amendment No. 52C. However, I assure noble Lords that Clause 8(2)(b) is necessarily drafted in the way that it is, to accurately describe what is an ID card for the purpose of the Act. The definition does not of course confer any powers to provide information; those are set out in Clauses 14, 17 and 19 to 23. Subsection (2)(b) accurately reflects those powers. Amending the clause in the way proposed would not affect those powers. Nevertheless, we believe it is better that the definition of an ID card should reflect more closely what it is actually intended to do. As the Government have said previously, it is intended that the identity card scheme will offer a number of different types of verification services, from an electronic card validity check to a biometric verification, which may be used for a particular transaction depending on the level of risk and value involved. Amendment No. 52C would limit the definition so that it only referred to allowing the citizen to identify himself by means of reference to the registrable facts held on the register. It will not always be the case that it is the registrable facts that are verified. For example, an electronic card validity check, PIN verification and a number of different options for remote authentication—which would be aimed at reducing online fraud, for example—may not be covered. Such checks may depend on the data held on the card enabling a check of information on the register that is not a registrable fact but is held on the register. For example, that might be technical information or information held in paragraphs 6 and 8 of Schedule 1; that is whether a card is in force or not and different types of security information. That would then provide a confirmation message in return to the user organisation. Systems using methods such as PIN verification are an established part of life today and are evolving. I cannot imagine that noble Lords intend for their use to be closed off as a possible option for the identity card scheme. I hope that provides some explanation about why Clause 8(2)(b) is drafted as it is, and I suggest that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 677 c1002
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Data protection Biometrics Crime prevention Death Costs Delegated legislation Fees and charges Identity cards Information Documents Personal records Proof of identity Passports Registration Security Driving licences
- Legislation
- Identity Cards Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-26 17:00:46 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_293582
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_293582
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_293582