The
Government has previously rejected comments about the need for
safeguards made by the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Joint
Committee on Human Rights.
The report
In introducing the Report, the Chairman of the Committee, Lord
Holme of Cheltenham, stressed that the Committee is not concerned
with the merits of the Bill – only its constitutional impact.
“Contrary to the Government’s assertions, the Committee
reaffirms that the Bill fundamentally alters the relationship
between citizens and the State,” he said. This largely arises
because the Committee feels that the legislation needs to be
"future proofed" against what it describes as "the potential for
abuse of the registration scheme by officials of the State claiming
to act in the public interest."
Lord Holme continued, "The Committee firmly reject Government
claims that, in respect of privacy, ID cards are comparable to
driving licenses and passports."
The Committee pointed out that the passport is "not subject to
statute law at all" and that the driving licence relates to the
"relatively narrow question of who should be permitted to drive
particular classes of vehicle."
“If Parliament decides identity cards are needed, it must
urgently consider amendments to introduce proper safeguards,” he
argued. The Committee is concerned that the Commissioner charged
with creating safeguards is not independent and does not have
powers "to receive complaints from individuals."
He added, “Parliament should not allow the Home Secretary such
powers to administer this significant and complex scheme.” The
Committee said that currently, "by administrative action alone" a
future Government could change the management of the ID Card scheme
and database.
The Committee concluded that:
- An independent body (not the Government) should be the
custodian of the National Identity Registrar and have proper
safeguards to prevent improper access to data, by public servants
and others.
- The proposed National Identity Scheme Commissioner should be
independent of Government, with the power to investigate complaints
and be able to report directly to Parliament.
- The Bill’s scope should be limited to the “voluntary phase”. If
the scheme is extended compulsorily to the entire population, then
new legislation should be required.
The Government's response
The Government has already rejected the Committee's
conclusions.
In a response to the Committee, which is included in yesterday's
publication, Baroness Scotland wrote, "I'm afraid that I do not
accept the argument that this legislation will change radically the
relationship between the state and the individual."
She continued: "The relationship between the state and the
individual did not change in 1837 when it was made compulsory for
every birth in England and Wales to be registered and recorded
nationally, nor when similar provisions were introduced in Scotland
in 1855 and in Ireland in 1864".
Scientists might find it absurd to compare 1837, the year of
Queen Victoria's coronation, with today's information age. In 1837,
Faraday was still 20 years from collecting his thoughts on
electricity; and Babbage had three years previously abandoned work
on his punch card "analytic engine" for lack of funds.
Baroness Scotland continued, "I do not agree with your view that
responsibility for operating the register should not be for the
Secretary of State." She added, "maintaining the supporting
national identity register should be a direct responsibility of
government".
"I do not agree that it is appropriate to create an entirely
independent officer," she wrote. "Indeed the commissioner will be
there to provide the Secretary of State with reassurance that the
identity cards scheme is operating correctly as well as providing
reports that will be published and laid before Parliament."
The scene is thus set for a contentious House of Lords encounter
with the Government more or less saying that the three
Parliamentary Committees which have expressed concern over the Bill
have the wrong analysis.
The Bill was given a third reading in the Commons last Tuesday
and was passed by 309 votes to 284, a government majority of just
25. The Government argues that the measure would not impact on
civil liberties but give people more control over their identities.
It is expected to commence its proceedings in the House of Lords at
the end of this month.
