---

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining her amendment so clearly. As the Bill stands, public service providers could require an individual who requested a service to produce an ID card, evidence of registrable facts, or both. If these amendments are accepted, public service providers could request only evidence of registrable facts. An ID card is, of course, evidence of registrable facts, but the amendment would arguably remove the power for an ID card to be specified as the form of identification to be used. Rather, people would be able to produce any form of identification, however insecure, which contained evidence of registrable facts. I would like to outline the importance of making public services conditional upon secure identity checks. The identity cards scheme will immediately provide a more convenient way for people to show their identity when accessing public or private sector services. However, until it becomes compulsory for the individual concerned to register, the ID card could not be the only way of proving identity for the purposes of receiving private services, benefits or free public services. Clause 18 sets out this prohibition on mandating use of the card before any move to compulsion. Nevertheless, the identity card will offer the individual a more secure proof of identity than what is on offer today. Amendments Nos. 64A and 64B seek to ensure that public service providers can only require an individual to provide evidence of registrable facts rather than specifying an ID card as a means of identification. In practice, the ID card makes the process of verification against the national identity register much easier and much quicker for the individual. Without it, while a biometric verification could take place against a register it may potentially require a more complex, ““one to many”” record check, rather than a more efficient ““one to one”” check, against the individual’s specific record. The alternative would be to rely on other, less secure, and often less convenient, documentation, such as utility bills, which were never really intended to provide proof of anything, other than how much gas or electricity has been used. I do not think it appropriate for the Bill to specify in which way public service providers must verify their customers. Subject to initial accreditation procedures, such decisions should be suited to the particular nature of the service provided and the existing relationship between the individual and the service provider. For some low-value transactions, or for individuals who have regular interaction with the service provider, a check on validity of the card—that is to say, it has not been reported lost or stolen—may simply be acceptable. Additionally, some organisations may decide to verify the individual by asking them to use the PIN. The choice should be one that is suited to the particular situation, not restricted in the manner in which these amendments would seek to do. Additionally, in the future, some methods of remote authentication, such as to request a service over the Internet, may require the individual requesting the service to physically have their ID card in their possession. These amendments would remove the ability of the service provider to insist that an ID card was present during such a transaction. Such a situation may mean that new secure technologies for remote authentication could not be used. Any regulations made under Clause 15 are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and would have to be individually approved for each public service that wished to rely on identity checks. Parliament will, therefore, have the opportunity to debate and vote on the regulations tabled for each public service. I hope that provides the noble Baroness with sufficient reassurance and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.