On Monday, the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords
published a critical report which reiterated its concerns about
insufficient safeguards associated with the ID Card scheme as it
believes that the ID Card "fundamentally alters the relationship
between citizens and the State".
In a Position Statement placed on his website today, the
Information Commissioner says:
"The measures in relation to the National
Identity Register and data trail of identity checks on individuals
risk an unnecessary and disproportionate intrusion into
individuals' privacy. They are not easily reconciled with
fundamental data protection safeguards such as fair processing and
deleting unnecessary personal information. An effective ID card can
be established avoiding these unwarranted consequences for
individuals as research has shown."
He continues, "The primary aim of the Government with this
legislation should be to establish a scheme which allows people to
reliably identify themselves rather than one which enhances its
ability to identify and record what its citizens do in their
lives."
These comments are echoed in the JCHR's official findings that
the scheme might not be compliant with the European Convention on
Human Rights (ECHR), in particular the respect for private life
(Article 8) and prohibition on discrimination (Article 14). In its
Report published on Tuesday, the Committee detailed its concerns.
The JCHR reported:
- "That the establishment of the National Identity Register under
the Bill was likely to lead to the compulsory retention of large
amounts of personal information in respect of large groups of
persons";
- "That such retention, either under a compulsory scheme or under
a scheme requiring registration to obtain designated documents,
risked being insufficiently targeted at addressing the statutory
aims to ensure proportionate interference with Article 8
rights";
- "That the imposition of effective compulsory registration
through designation of documents, including documents unrelated to
the statutory aims, risked disproportionate interference with
Article 8 rights, as well as unjustified discrimination under
Article 14";
- "That a system of phased-in compulsory registration risked
disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR, and unjustified
discrimination in breach of Article 8 read with Article 14
EHCR";
- "That further safeguards should be included on the face of the
Bill to ensure that the system of checks on the Register (clause
18) was compliant with Article 8";
- "That the wide scope for disclosure of information from the
Register (clauses 19-22) risked breach of Article 8 rights, in the
absence of sufficient safeguards on the face of the Bill".
The Report concluded by saying "the Bill's provision for the
retention of extensive personal information relating to all or
large sections of the population may be insufficiently targeted to
be justified as proportionate to the statutory aims and may lead to
disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights".
The Law Society in a statement published with the JCHR Report
states: "We believe that the Bill provides Government with
unnecessary and undesirably wide powers to record, retain and
disseminate personal data, and do not believe that adopting an
identity card scheme is a proportionate response to the challenges
which the Government is trying to address".
It concludes, "In addition, we believe adopting the scheme would
increase the administrative burden on those delivering public
services and put a heavy financial burden on government and members
of the public".
