---

Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 2:"Page 2, line 34, leave out ““physical”” and insert ““external””" The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 amends the list of registrable facts so that instead of Clause 1(7)(e) referring to ““physical”” characteristics that are capable of being used for identifying an individual, it refers to ““external”” characteristics that are capable of being used for identifying an individual. I should say at the outset that this amendment is not intended to give effect to any change of policy. However, it fulfils the Government’s commitment on Report to review this matter in response to concerns understandably expressed by a number of noble Lords. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was concerned that the reference to ““physical”” characteristics could encompass internal characteristics. As I said at the time, the wording of paragraph (e) has to be considered as a whole, and it is not at all obvious that internal characteristics would be a useful, or indeed a viable, means of identifying people. However, we accept the noble Lord’s point that for the sake of clarity this matter should be put beyond doubt in the Bill. I have therefore brought forward government Amendment No. 2, which changes the word ““physical”” to ““external””. By implication ““internal”” characteristics are not a registrable fact. They could not therefore be recorded on the register other than in the limited circumstances provided for in Clause 3(3); that is to say where a person has requested that additional information—for example, his blood group—be held on his record. There is a further benefit in bringing forward Amendment No. 2 forward. It would bring the wording in Clause 1(7)(e) into line with the definition of biometric information in Clause 43(1), which also uses the phrase ““external characteristics””. It will therefore be beyond doubt that the reference in Clause 1(7)(e) to external characteristics encompasses biometrics. Finally, Amendment No. 2 would have the consequence that DNA could be added to Schedule 1 only by way of primary legislation, not by way of order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The reason for this is that DNA is not an external characteristic, so is not a registrable fact. Holding it on the register would not be consistent with statutory purposes. As has been said many times before in this House and in another place, it is not and has never been our policy that DNA should be stored on the register. This Bill in no way caters for a DNA register. For example, while there are powers to require fingerprints to be taken, there are no powers to require DNA samples. A future government who wished to add DNA to the information which may be held on the register would have to bring forward further primary legislation. Amendment No. 2 has the consequence of putting that issue beyond a shadow of a doubt. I beg to move.