Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Earl of Erroll and Baroness Neville-Jones

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Tuesday 21st June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of this amendment. My noble friend has just said that he doubts that the Government will adopt it, but, like him, I want to know where their thinking has got to.

The Computer Misuse Act is one of the first bits of legislation passed in the cyber era. It is old and out of date, and it is fair to say that it contains actively unhelpful provisions that place in legal jeopardy researchers who are doing work that is beneficial to cybersecurity. That is not a desirable piece of legislation to have on the statute book.

Last year, before the consultation that closed over a year ago, I corresponded with my noble friend Lady Williams. The common-sense reading of her reply was that the Home Office was quite aware that the Computer Misuse Act needed updating. I confess that I am a bit disappointed that, a year after the consultation closed, there still has not been a peep from the Government on this subject—either a draft or a statement of intention. It would be good to know where the Government are going, because it is quite damaging for this legislation as it stands to remain on the statute book: it needs modernisation.

Like my noble friend, I recognise that actually getting the drafting right is tricky and complex. Drafting language that strikes the right balance is not all that easy. But inability to find an ideal outcome is not a good reason for doing nothing, so I live in expectation, because the best must not be the enemy of the good. If the Government do not intend to produce legislation that updates that Act, I should like to see something in this legislation, taking advantage of it, at least to move the dial forward and protect ethical hackers to a greater extent than is the case at the moment.

If the Government are concerned about our drafting, I am sure we would be willing to listen to suggestions on a better formulation. In the absence of that, perhaps the Minister will say when and how the Government intend actually to modify a piece of legislation that has served its time and now needs to be superseded.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, very quickly, I remember well during the passage of the Computer Misuse Act and the Police and Justice Act 2006 trying to tidy up language about hacking tools and so on. It became very complicated and no one could quite work out how to do it, because the same thing could be used by baddies to do one thing and by good people to help maintain systems, et cetera. In the end, I think it went into the Act and they just said, “Well, we won’t prosecute the good guys”. Everyone felt that was a little inadequate. I do not know quite what we are going to do about it but it needs to be looked at. Therefore, this is a good start and I would welcome some discussion around it, because we need something in law to protect the good people as well as to catch the criminals.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Earl of Erroll and Baroness Neville-Jones

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I recognise the strength of sentiment expressed on all sides of the House. If the House will permit, I shall explain why I cannot accept the amendment.

The Government set out at an early stage that they would not continue with this legislation and that they would repeal the Bill. That has been the long-standing position of the Government, well known in advance. It is fair to say that the Government made their position known on the fact that the ID cards would no longer have any validity.

[The Earl of Erroll]

Excuse me, but that was the opinion of the Opposition at the time, not of the Government.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The noble Earl is quite right. It has always been the intention, whether in opposition or in government, to scrap the ID cards scheme at the least possible extra cost to the taxpayer. Our primary purpose has been to prevent further expense being incurred when we can avoid it. We have no option but to pay compensation to some contractors because we are tied in by the contracts negotiated by our predecessors. That is a contractual agreement, and we are negotiating at the moment what that final sum should be. We do not agree that there is a contract between the Government and cardholders who received a service, nor do we believe that there is any expropriation of property or rights under it. The cardholders are not card-owners; the noble Lords who said that the card was government property were quite right to say so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

If it is a valid document, it can be used validly for identity. If it is an invalid or cancelled document, obviously it no longer has any legal status.

[The Earl of Erroll]

Under Clause 6 about the possession of false identity documents, does the ID card once it has been revoked become a false identity document? That was the point that the noble Lord was making. It is government property and it is no longer an identity document, so in using it you are probably using a false identity document.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

You are certainly no longer using a valid identity document. It is not any longer valid in law.

The Identity and Passport Service has estimated that the cost of cancelling the ID cards scheme and the national identity register will be up to £5 million. This includes an estimated figure for compensation to the contractors, which I have just mentioned, destruction costs, staffing and other administrative matters. They are all necessary costs that we cannot avoid in abolishing the scheme. A refund scheme would add 10 per cent to that cost, which we do not consider to be a trivial addition.

Noble Lords have talked about principle. One can look at that in several ways. One of the principles that seems to be on offer this afternoon is that one set of taxpayers should refund another set of taxpayers. This does not seem to be a sensible arrangement. Some say that the sum is only about £400,000—one of the noble Lords mentioned that sum—the inference being that in the grand scheme of things this is entirely insignificant. Certainly, compared with the cost of the ID card scheme that has already been paid out—over £290 million—another half a million pounds might not seem significant. That is not, I am afraid, the attitude that the coalition Government take to public spending. We have demonstrated that we have a commitment to ensuring that unnecessary and unjustifiable expenditure is stopped and that we focus on delivering more for less. We are not therefore in a position to offer this refund.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, support for the Irish Government, the national interest, the economic prosperity of this country and the welfare of Ireland are quite different matters. I do not think that we can ignore the very low level of public interest in and reaction to the Government’s decision. The House should take note of that. I have tried to deal with compromises. They do not work; otherwise one might be able to do something in that respect.

I ought to deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brett. I apologise to him that he did not receive an answer earlier. We have not consulted the Government of Gibraltar, who issue their cards in a rather different way. The Identity and Passport Service is not able to answer that question directly. The UKBA is the agency which sees the documents of EU cardholders. We will have to get further information on that point, which I will endeavour to do for the noble Lord.

In light of the views that have been expressed in the House this afternoon, I propose to take this amendment away and consider it.

[The Earl of Erroll]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she guarantee to come back with an amendment along the lines of recompensing people? On two occasions the Government have promised to take a proposal of mine away—this Bill has only one more stage—but at Third Reading have weaselled out of it at the last minute. Under the rules governing Third Reading, we are not able to put down anything at that stage to ensure that the Government come back with something, so we need a binding commitment from the Government to come back with an amendment along the lines of this one. If the Government will not give such a commitment, we should not permit the amendment to be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I fully understand the sentiment behind this, but I am not sure this is the best way to go. I do not think it is really the Home Office’s forte to produce such a report. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee; there are a lot of lessons to be learnt and a lot of people studying this sort of thing. As for the figures used by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—and taking the point just made about the banks—that is the whole point. People confuse theft of credit card details with identity theft. Identity theft is when someone’s identity is taken over and used to do many other things, such as entering into contracts, travelling across borders and perpetrating crimes. Nicking a credit card and its details is something completely different. Those provide the huge figures, and the people who can stop that are the banks and the credit card companies by increasing their security. They are always looking at this, and they are trading off between the losses they make on transactions where cards are not present, and the cost of additional security. We are seeing new security measures coming through, but it is not a government job. There is no point at which you would take a national identity card that is not designed for online transactions, and a credit card that at the moment is not designed for them, and hope that one is going to help with the other. Actually, the entire problem about security for the credit card is contained there, and the people know what to do about it. They are getting on with it rather slowly to my mind, but when the fraud figures get big enough they will do something about it. I agree there are lessons to be learnt, but I do not think it is an identity card lesson. There are some other lessons to be learnt, but I think that there are other bodies better qualified to do the job than the Home Office writing expensive reports.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raises two issues. He spoke to the first issue as regards combating identity fraud and the effect of the repeal. He did not really mention the second, which would require us to write reports on the operation of the identity card scheme. I will deal with both those matters because, if the amendment were accepted, they would be obligations on the Government.

I very much support the notion that what we do in government should be evidence-based, but I do not think that trying to draw lessons from a scheme of such narrow scope and numbers, as well as short duration, will help us a great deal in what are, without doubt, serious issues. One can draw a number of lessons about the operation of the scheme itself, but I do not know that they would cast much light of a general kind on how to operate identity schemes in the future. Frankly, the Government’s view is that this is not a worthwhile thing for us to try to do.

We entirely agree that combating fraud is a major issue. There is no argument between us on that. That is precisely why the Home Office is taking it very seriously in conjunction with other departments. The National Fraud Authority and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau have, as I mentioned in Committee, produced a strategic threat assessment of the harm and the impact of identity fraud. I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that identity is an issue and we certainly will have to do work on identity authentication. That would have been the case even with the NIR.

These assessments are now being taken as the base for an action plan, which I also mentioned in Committee. I hope that the House will accept that it would not be sensible for us to publish the details of the action plan, which is designed to try to get at the root of those who are engaged in criminal and fraudulent activity. But I can assure the House that we are taking this issue seriously.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (No. 2) Regulations 2010

Debate between Earl of Erroll and Baroness Neville-Jones

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, the UK Border Agency currently spends over £2 billion to manage its borders and control migration. Over a third of its total running costs is recovered through fees on visas, nationality and immigration applications. The remaining costs are met by the UK taxpayer. Clearly there is a balance between these two things to which I shall return.

Earlier this year the Chancellor set out in his emergency Budget the position of the nation’s finances, which revealed the very difficult choices that had to be made by government departments. Of course the decision to increase the fees is relevant to the background and the economic situation which we were left by our predecessors. The decision has been taken to take the UK Border Agency into the new spending review period in a position where more is done to balance the costs of supporting the immigration system between those who use and benefit directly from it and the UK taxpayer, who is otherwise obliged to subsidise it.

The Home Office is making savings of £367 million this year. The proposals we are debating today form the other part of the equation—that is to say, seeking to increase fees paid by migrants and sponsors.

The regulations are made under Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and are in accordance with the powers granted in Section 42 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, as amended by Section 20 of the UK Borders Act 2007. Under Section 42, the Secretary of State can set a fee for an application at a level that exceeds the administrative cost of determining the application. The way in which the legal powers are defined means that the Government must also specify fees for applications, processes and services that are provided at or below the administrative cost of determining the application, in separate regulations under the powers in Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. These regulations were laid before Parliament on 9 September 2010, are subject to the negative process and are not being debated. I recognise that having fees in two sets of regulations makes things a little complicated and I am happy to take the points that may be raised today on any of the fees proposals.

For these mid-year increases, the UK Border Agency has undertaken very careful consideration of the issues. These increases are made in line with the principle that the overall contribution of fee increases should be spread across all routes and be in line with our broader policy to align better our fees structure overseas with the one operating in the United Kingdom. Where there are greater increases to the fees on some routes than others, we have done so on the basis of the benefit to the migrant of a successful application. Examples of benefit vary from route to route but may include, for instance, access to the UK labour market, the right to stay here permanently or the right to vote.

These increases mean that the Government can hold other fees at existing levels, or increase them only by a comparatively small amount to help maintain our international competitiveness and in recognition of the importance of these routes to the UK economy. For example, the Government recognise the importance of keeping direct costs to sponsors under the points-based system as low as possible, particularly in the current economic climate. The fees for acting as a sponsor and the certificate of sponsorship fee have been held at the same level as previously, while maintaining existing concessions for small businesses, charities, education providers and the arts and entertainment sectors.

In the same spirit, we have managed to limit the tier 4 visa increase to just £21, which is for a visa being offered below cost. It is a very small proportion of the overall costs incurred by a tier 4 student coming to the UK to study, who will pay an average tuition fee of close to £10,000 a year in higher education. The visitor visa has been increased by only £2. Tourism is obviously important to the UK economy, but it is right that the migrants contribute towards the costs of the services they use and benefit from. However, we have still kept it down and the fee recovers only about half of the total administrative cost of the visa.

The House will, I hope, be pleased to hear that these proposals also introduce a fee exemption where a person makes an application for a nationality registration relying on Section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981. This will align better the position of those applicants born to British mothers with that of applicants born to British fathers. This is a long-standing grievance, which I have shared, and was a matter of great interest to this House. I hope that fulfilment of that commitment made by the previous Government gives satisfaction today.

This Government are committed to sending a message overseas that we welcome legal migrants and that the UK is open for business. I believe, as the Government believe, that migration brings great benefits to the UK. However, I also believe that UK citizens and newcomers to this country wish to see an immigration system in place that is sustainable and stronger in the future, and is less subsidised by the average taxpayer. The immigration system costs money and, through these proposals, the Government are seeking today a greater contribution, as I say, from those who benefit most—a little more in line with the benefits on offer—so that the traveller and migrant meet a greater proportion of the costs of the system. As your Lordships can see, we have tried to keep down the cost for those who receive comparatively little—the tourist and, indeed, the student—and put the increases primarily in those areas where there is long-term benefit for individuals who come to work or to settle here. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I rise to speak on the Motion as the regulations have a direct impact on a tiny company—on whose advisory board I sit—called Pingar UK, which is developing contextual search engine technology for a number of years. We are a subsidiary or offshoot of a New Zealand company that is funding the research and wanted to have a research establishment over here. This information is highly relevant as it will explain why this government policy is a disaster that will drive small companies such as Pingar offshore.

Tomorrow night, I will take part in a conference call with the New Zealand company in which we will almost certainly decide to move out of this country because of the immigration policy and the visa policy. A company employee took a degree at a Welsh university. He is a Hong Kong citizen. He obtained an 18-month postgraduate visa to do further development work, but that has expired. In the summer, we applied to get the visa extended, but we got caught up in the mish-mash of everything when the new immigration cap of 24,100 visas was suddenly introduced. We needed a certificate of sponsorship.

We got the certificate of sponsorship just in time, which was amazing since we employ hardly anyone over here and the chap in question will really be the first serious employee. That was the right thing to do. However, we were given a zero visa allocation. All the time that we put into the matter was completely wasted because we cannot sponsor him. We have now been told that, for £1,000, we might get a visa after all. The decision has been taken that, as a small business, we cannot afford to pay out £1,000 on a gamble. As another director of the company said, “It is a lottery”, so there is absolutely no point in doing it.

I am intrigued that the Explanatory Memorandum’s paragraph 11, “Regulating small business”, states:

“The legislation does not apply to small business”.

The very reason that we will have to relocate offshore is because, indirectly, the legislation does apply to small business. We will probably try to relocate the research arm in either Singapore or Hong Kong. Pingar is not the only company that I know of in this situation. Many people are considering relocation. I am afraid that the Government’s immigration policy is about the most stupid thing that they could have done for small business.

I have heard, and read in the papers, about the new entrepreneurship visas that are about to be issued. I would love to know how to get one for the chap, if we can. We do not have long to make up our mind. He is currently abroad as, under the law, he is required to be. In the next week or two, we have to decide where he should move to. I should be delighted to hear from the Minister how these new entrepreneurship visas will work. Why should we pay £1,000 to enter a lottery to see whether we can exist in this country?

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Earl of Erroll and Baroness Neville-Jones

Monday 1st November 2010 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has just raised a series of issues that are not covered by the amendments in this group, which I will cover when we come to the appropriate amendment. It is important to start our debate in Committee with this group of amendments because they go to the heart of the issues we have to deal with, and we need a debate on the underlying implications of what the opposition Benches are proposing. I owe it to the Committee to explain why, far from being simple, these amendments present a real difficulty.

Amendment 1 would remove the current status of the identity card as an identity document and instead it would become a simple plastic version of a passport. I have to say that if that had been the original intention of the identity card, matters might have been a great deal simpler. Instead, the previous Government indicated that ID cards were essential for security, necessary to prevent terrorism and crucial in detecting fraud. At Second Reading during the passage of the Bill in the other place, we were told that cancelling the ID card scheme would cause the end of civilisation as we know it. The current shadow Chancellor and then Home Secretary said at Second Reading of the Bill in the other place:

“All that we want to do is make it easier for banks, GPs and employers to verify someone's identity and thereby make it much more difficult for people to create multiple identities and commit identity fraud. That crime costs our economy £1.2 billion every year and has increased by 20% in the first quarter of this year alone. Combating identity fraud protects the security not just of individuals but of all of us collectively. Drug dealers, people traffickers and terrorists depend on access to false documents”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/10; col. 358.]

We agree with a lot of the sentiments there; the issue is whether ID cards have performed any of those functions.

The amendment clearly recognises that the ID card was not that panacea. It is unfortunate that, after spending millions of pounds on a scheme which the public did not want, we now have, in effect, a credit-card-sized version of the passport for travel in Europe. That would be the effect.

I want to come back to that in a minute, but I want first to comment on the amendments to transfer the records of ID cardholders from the national identity register to the passport database. There are some problems. Those amendments depend on Amendment 1 being accepted, but the practical issues are these. The passport application and issuing process is governed by a fee structure which provides that the income generated from the fee can be spent only on passports. There is no provision which would allow the passport structure to expend resources, no matter how small, on other areas than passports. The Identity and Passport Service does not hold any other database, so unless the amendments are intended to suggest that a new one be established, it is not clear to me how the transfer of information could occur.

[The Earl of Erroll]

Is the passport defined as a paper document containing X number of pages, or could the general word passport include a bit of plastic?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

It is defined as a travel document. The issue is what the passport database contains. It is able to hold early biographical information and a facial biometric. The NIR, the other database, is going to be destroyed. I can only assume that noble Lords are suggesting that a new database be set up, because the passport database cannot take this stuff. That would require a separate provision—statutory enactment—and resources.

Furthermore, the information held on ID cardholders includes fingerprints. Fingerprints are not held for passports, and the IPS does not have the capacity to store fingerprints, nor any intention to start taking fingerprints for passports, as we have indicated. The amendment fails to consider how the fingerprints would be stored. Perhaps it is not envisaged that fingerprints would be retained, but in that event, it is not clear whether that is an omission or whether it represents a change of policy on the part of noble Lords opposite concerning the need to take fingerprints.

[The Earl of Erroll]

I am sorry to interrupt yet again, but paragraph (a) in Amendment 4 states,

“which is relevant to an application by a person (“P”) for a passport”.

In other words, it would not include fingerprints or anything which is extraneous to a passport application. I have to admit that I did not draft the amendment, but, on reading it carefully, the reason that I backed it but not Amendment 2 was that Amendment 2 seemed to be a blanket provision for transfer, but Amendment 4 seems to provide for only those things, which would be very few things. It would be a minimal data transfer merely to facilitate the issuing of a passport.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Yes, but the fingerprint process is an integral part of the ID card process. The noble Earl is saying that we should now somehow start tweaking the data as we go through.

[The Earl of Erroll]

I envisaged that the amendment meant that the fingerprints go, everything on the NIR is scrapped and one or two things—which might be literally just the facial biometric—are transferred to the passport to save time. That is all.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I did not add my name to the amendment because there was not room, but I spoke about this on Second Reading. It is absolute lunacy not to offer a refund. It could be optional, in which case, as I said, a lot of people might well then decide to keep the cards as a collector’s item and an investment for the future. The concept that we would have to spend £22 million refunding the money is, to my mind, dotty. The Government have clearly fallen into the hands of the large systems integrators again, who are siphoning off our taxpayers’ money to America. I would suggest that they deal with some British SMEs for a change, but unfortunately government procurement rules do not let us do that at the moment. That is just a quick side swipe.

Thinking about the statements of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, about consumer protection, I thought that there was also provision under the ECHR whereby Governments could not expropriate private property without compensation. I suppose that the ID card is not people’s property, but presumably there is an issue because they paid for it and were expecting something in return. If it is expropriated without compensation, I should have thought that that might be an interesting case to go further up the line—there is nothing like stirring things up a bit.

I find amusing the concept that the general public are better than the weather forecasters, all the pundits and all the experts, and can predict the outcome of the next general election several months ahead. That is wonderful. I would love to know who those members of the public are. Then there is the idea that they could also predict the coalition, the way round that it ended up, which was not expected by many people at all. For a while it was largely thought that Labour and the Liberals would end up together. Then there is each of the parties having the arrogance to say that they will have sufficient control over the next Parliament to get what they want through. This is still a democracy. Opposition parties are still supposed to have some say. I know that after a few unfortunate years under first Margaret Thatcher and then Tony Blair, when majorities were excessive, Governments behaved in that way. Perhaps it is good that we return to the situation where Governments do not have control over Parliament and these things have to be agreed among other people, including Cross-Benchers—who are sometimes very cross.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I appreciate the importance that the noble Lords who have spoken place on the matter of refunds, but it is not at all clear that their anxiety on this matter is widely shared elsewhere. Following Second Reading, I asked the Identity and Passport Service to inquire into exactly how much correspondence it had had about refunds. I would expect that to be the place where letters were sent on that subject. From May to September, it received a total of 297 letters about ID cards, of which 122 included complaints about refunds. We do not know whether all of those 122 letter writers were cardholders, among the 12,000 who have paid for the card, but I do not think that that is a significant indicator of widespread indignation on the part of the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, speaking as a non-lawyer, I hope that I may be able to give the noble Lord some comfort on this amendment. We certainly recognise that the intention of these amendments is to bring clarity to what might otherwise seem complex provisions of the Bill. As your Lordships will be aware, the provisions in Clause 4 re-enact the Identity Cards Act 2006. As the purpose of the Bill is to scrap the ID card scheme and destroy the NIR, that gives rise to questions about how we describe these offences and where we put them. However, law enforcement remains important. Last year, there were 3,000 convictions for offences under the 2006 Act. That is a significant number of successful prosecutions and the powers that are being re-enacted are being used on a daily basis by the police and other enforcement agencies and provide important operational tools to tackle fraud-related offences, so we are anxious to ensure that the law remains effective in this respect.

We do not see great benefit in considering amendments that are aimed at improving the clarity of the legislation which is successfully applied in the investigative and judicial enforcement stages of the criminal justice system. ACPO fully supports the retention of the existing powers. However—this is where I come to the next set of issues—we do not believe that everything should stand still. While re-enacting the provisions to maintain the effectiveness of tackling fraud, the coalition Government have undertaken to review the number of offences on the statute book and to consider the scope for repeal. Therefore, we are on the same track as noble Lords in wanting to ensure the appropriateness of the offences and the powers to ensure their enforcement.

Over this autumn, we will look at whether these offences should stand alone, or whether they can be accommodated within existing offences under fraud and counterfeiting legislation. I am aware that the offences in the Act derive in some part from the paper issued in 2004 by the previous Administration, entitled Fraud Law Reform: Consultation on Proposals for Legislation. We will examine the common ground, or overlap, that exists between the Identity Cards Act and other legislation to see if there is scope for simplification and rationalisation of the offences. I hope that this answers the noble Lord’s point. We will undertake that work this autumn alongside colleagues in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It may be that in the end we decide that the offences should remain in place; but possibly they could be combined with others. Clearly there is an operational need for them, so the issue is how they are best described and where they are best placed.

While Amendments 9 and 11, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, do not change the meaning of that provision, Amendment 10 does, because the effect is to widen the scope of the offence so that it is no longer limited—here, perhaps, there is a substantive disagreement—to the use of cards to establish aspects of the person’s identity. The common factor in relation to all documents listed in Clause 7(1) is that they may be used as identity documents. It is the improper use of these documents as identity documents that the offence is targeting—nothing beyond that. Other dishonest uses to which the documents may be put are likely to be covered by other legislation. We are not neglecting the issue, but we do not see it as relevant to the Bill.

Obviously, this legislation is to get rid of the ID card system. In view of our intention to look at the law enforcement aspects and related offences, and bearing in mind in the mean time the need for these powers, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I have no doubt that, in consideration of how we deal with these offences in future, his help and views will be greatly appreciated.

[The Earl of Erroll]

Would it be possible later to have a written explanation of what Clause 4(3) means? I am sure that I read it wrongly and it would be interesting to find out. Also, I do not know what “establishing” means in this context, and it would be nice to know that when I am asked by other people.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, Clause 4(3) excludes the scenario where a person uses another’s card to establish personal information about the other person. It would allow a carer, for example, to assist an elderly relative by using that person’s document to collect a parcel or avail themselves of a service on behalf of that person. In other words, that is a perfectly proper intention—what is intended to be excluded is improper intention. The term “establishing” could have two meanings, as suggested. It could mean proving certain facts, or finding out certain facts.

Biometric Passports

Debate between Earl of Erroll and Baroness Neville-Jones

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The Government entirely agree with my noble friend that passport security is extremely important, and we intend to ensure that security. However, our view is that the interests of the country are not well served by the Government starting to maintain a database of all passport holders, which amounts to 80 per cent of the population.

[The Earl of Erroll]

I welcome the fact that biometrics will not be kept on the national identity register—this is essential—but we ought to have biometrics in passports which match ICAO standards to make it easier to travel. We should not be frightened of that as long as they are not held centrally.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

We agree that it is extraordinarily important that passports should have adequate security, and we believe that British passports with the single facial recognition biometric will achieve those standards. There are actually a number of countries other than the United Kingdom that do not have plans to introduce a second biometric.