Report - Guardian

The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005 29763. The purposes of the draft Bill as set out inClause 1 are very broad and the list of registrablefacts is longer than those the Home Office has saidare necessary to establish identity. Both thepurposes of the Bill and the registrable facts shouldbe strictly limited to establishing identity andimmigration status, so as to ensure that theprovisions of the Data Protection Act cover theoperation of the scheme effectively. (Paragraph231)64. It is not yet possible to be more precise aboutthe list of registrable facts, because the aims of thescheme, and hence the requirements for informationto be registered, are not sufficiently clear. As theBill proceeds, the Government must set out itsjustification better. (Paragraph 232)65. Clause 1 should set out the aims of the scheme.A possible formulation might be: "to enable anindividual to identify himself in order to gain accessto public and private services or when required toidentify himself for the purposes of lawenforcement". Wording of this sort would establisha test against which the data to be stored and usedcould be tested. It would also guard against the typeof function creep in which the state uses the registerto identify individuals without amendment byParliament. (Paragraph 233)66. There should be explicit provision in the Billthat all access to the register must be recorded.(Paragraph 234)67. We support the provisions in Clauses 2(4) and8(4) that enable registration of failed asylum seekersand other similar cases, but recommend that theHome Office clarify the purposes of these Clausesin the Bill. (Paragraph 235)68. Clause 3 provides an acceptable mechanism foramending the information required to be held on theRegister, but only if the statutory purposes of theBill are clarified as we recommend. (Paragraph 237)69. It is practical to allow some flexibility overprecisely which documents are required atregistration and that these should be set out insecondary legislation. But the Bill should state thatonly those documents that are reasonably necessaryto establish identity may be required. There shouldbe a right of appeal to the National Identity SchemeCommissioner. (Paragraph 239)70. The proposed penalties [for failing to registerwhen required to do so and for failing to provideinformation] are reasonable given their purposesand existing penalties for similar offences.(Paragraph 244)Supported by research.Supported by research.Supported by research.Conditionally supported. See Appendix detailingconcerns about the audit trail.Not applicable to this study.Conditionally supported. The desirability ofhaving a national Register of data has not beencomprehensively assessed.Supported by research.Not supported by research. The conditionsestablished through the development of acomprehensive identity card system cannotreadily be compared with those of othermechanisms.