Proceeding contribution from Earl of Northesk (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 30 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Identity Cards Bill 2005-06.
Identity Cards Bill
moved Amendment No. 93:"After Clause 26, insert the following new clause—" ““TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD (1) There shall be a Technical Advisory Board (““the Board””) consisting of such number of persons appointed by the Secretary of State as he may by order provide. (2) The order providing for the membership of the Board must also make provision which is calculated to ensure that— (a) the membership of the Board includes persons likely effectively to represent the interests of the citizen in respect of civil liberties, with particular reference to the privacy of the individual; (b) the membership of the Board includes persons likely effectively to represent the interests of the information technology industry, with particular reference to biometrics and the security of the IT infrastructure of the National Identity Scheme; (c) the membership of the Board includes persons likely effectively to represent the interests of law enforcement and national security; (d) the membership of the Board includes such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit to appoint as members of the Board; and (e) the Board is so constituted as to produce a balance between the representation of the interests mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d). (3) The order providing for the membership of the Board must also make provision which is calculated to ensure that the Board reports to both Houses of Parliament on an annual basis. (4) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House. (5) It shall be the duty of the Board to offer advice on the development of the National Identity Scheme.”” The noble Earl said: My Lords, I apologise for having been unable to attend the last day in Committee just before Christmas, when this matter would have been debated. I therefore hope that your Lordships will forgive me for retabling both this and other amendments on Report. The amendment proposes the establishment of a technical advisory board to advise on a number of areas relating to the development of the national identity register. I express gratitude to my noble friend Lord Cope. I have, as it were, borrowed the text of the amendment from him. Although I have broadened its scope somewhat, the House may recognise it from a previous incarnation as an amendment that he made to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. The proposal is in part motivated by the recognition of the Constitution Committee of,"““the desirability of creating an independent expert advisory or consultative committee or commission to exercise informed judgement regarding development of the National Identity Scheme””." I can be certain that the Government will reject the amendment. As did the Minister earlier in our proceedings and in her helpful letter of 11 January—I thank her for it—she will list the various bodies that have been established to develop the scheme to fruition: the biometric advisory group, the Home Office’s Biometrics Centre of Expertise, the biometrics assurance group and so on. Nevertheless, the Government have invested a great deal of political capital in this Bill. It is a key component of their legislative programme for this Parliament. It is not unreasonable to suggest that our scrutiny so far has exposed manifest flaws in the scheme, not least in respect of cost, technology, civil liberties and privacy. I make it clear that I do not in any way question the integrity or the expertise of the various bodies cited. Nevertheless, they are of necessity creations of government and, to that extent, their remit is rooted in the determination of the Home Office to enact this measure regardless. Quite apart from that, it is worth noting that, in making its recommendation, the Constitution Committee took due account of the bodies already established by the Government. It none the less felt the situation warranted the creation of an outside body to ““exercise informed judgement””. That is what the amendment would provide. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 678 c58-9
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Disability Disclosure of information Data protection Databases Codes of practice CCTV Biometrics Costs ICT Genetics EU law Identity cards European communities Internet Ethnic groups Personal records Public appointments Photographs Nationality National identity register Proof of identity Passports Prescriptions Registration Surveillance Hacking Office of the Identity Commissioner Driving licences Transgender people
- Legislation
- Identity Cards Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-06-10 14:36:18 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_295860
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_295860
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_295860