Report - Guardian

300 The LSE Identity Project Report: June 200587. It is reasonable for the scheme to be operatedby an Executive Agency similar to the DVLA orUK Passport Service. But we reject the argumentthat since their operations are not overseen by aCommissioner, neither should those of an identitycard agency. We believe that because the identitycard scheme would directly affect the daily lives ofmillions of people, and routinely involve sensitiveand often highly personal information, oversight ofits operation is utterly different to that of the DVLAor UK Passport Service. The National IdentityScheme Commissioner should report directly toParliament. He or she should have powers ofoversight covering the operation of the entirescheme, including access by law enforcementagencies and the security and intelligence services.(Paragraph 276)88. There are no provisions in Clause 27 to coveraiding and abetting the offences created, orconspiracy to commit them. It is possible that thesecan be dealt with through existing legislation, butwe believe that it would be more sensible to coverthem explicitly in the Bill. (Paragraph 277)89. We welcome the Home Office's commitment toenabling complaints to be made about the operationof the scheme. The provisions to enable this must beeffective, unbureaucratic and practical. (Paragraph278)Overall conclusions90. We believe that an identity card scheme couldmake a significant contribution to achieving theaims set out for it by the Government, particularlytackling crime and terrorism. In principle, anidentity card scheme could also play a useful role inimproving the co-ordination of and the citizen'saccess to public services, although the Governmenthas not yet put forward clear proposals to do so. Webelieve that the Government has made a convincingcase for proceeding with the introduction of identitycards. (Paragraph 279)91. However, the introduction of identity cardscarries clear risks, both for individuals and for thesuccessful implementation of the scheme. We areconcerned by the lack of clarity and definition onkey elements of the scheme and its future operationand by the lack of openness in the procurementprocess. The lack of clarity and openness increasesthe risks of the project substantially. This is notjustified and must be addressed if the scheme is toenjoy public confidence and to work and achieve itsaims in practice. (Paragraph 280)Supported by research.Not applicable to this study.Supported by research.Conditionally supported. The impact of anidentity card on levels of crime and terrorism islargely unknown and conclusions in this area arespeculative.Supported by research.