The National Identity Register will have tight access controls, stringent security and no risk of "discs flying around", MPs have been told.
Home Office minister Meg Hillier defended the government's plans for its National Identity Scheme, as she faced questions about data security from a committee of MPs.
Hillier, who has responsibility for ID cards, said it was important to win public confidence in the scheme, particularly following a number of recent cases in which the government has misplaced or lost confidential data.
The biggest loss was at HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). It lost two discs containing the details of 25 million families when they were sent to the National Audit Office by courier.
"From the point of view of the National Identity Register, there would not be discs flying around in that way. Anything that was ever downloaded would be encrypted. There would be severe access controls," said Hillier.
Hillier said that human error was involved in the HMRC data loss, whereas fewer than 100 people will have access to the National Identity Register.
Committee member Bob Russell said that this was a case of the government putting "all its eggs in one basket". But Hillier said there would actually be two "baskets": one database for biometrics, such as fingerprints and facial records, and another for biographical information.
The government will also create an "identity custodian", to whom members of the public could apply about any accesses to their ID records.
Dr Duncan Hine, director of National Identity Scheme integrity for the Identity and Passport Service, told the committee that the biometric data will be held at a higher level of security than the biographical information. He said that the vast majority of accesses will be initiated by the individual concerned, for example when they buy a house and need to prove their identity.
In rare cases the security services will be able to access the database, but not the NHS or police, the committee heard.
James Clappison MP expressed concern that European institutions will have access to ID card data. He asked exactly which bodies would be allowed access and in what circumstances. Hillier said that the number of institutions was too many to list, but any organisation requesting access would have to prove it needed the information as part of an ongoing investigation.
The National Identity Register will be very similar to the passport database and Hillier said: "The passport database is certainly a very secure database. The average man and woman in the street are not worried about it."
Asked if the government had gauged public opinion on identity cards, Hillier said the latest official findings were that 60 percent of citizens were in favour.
Committee member Martin Salter warned that, if the security of the National Identity Register was breached, "it could be catastrophic for the individuals concerned".
Philippe Martin, senior analyst at Kable, said: "The government appears to be moving the debate about identity away from ID cards and towards a National Identity Register."
"This could indicate a postponement of ID cards for UK nationals, as the government changes the direction of the scheme away from providing a card to facilitate access to services and towards collecting information about citizens," said Martin.
Talkback
If, as the government say, fewer than 100 people will have access to the data in it, what is it going to be used for?
Is it simply gathering personal information for the sake of holding that information with no clear purpose in mind?
After all, if it cannot be accessed by the police, as the government have said, then it will be no use for verifying identity during spot checks.
They suggest it will need to be accessed to prove one's identity for buying a house. Pointless - everyone will simply buy houses through companies or trusts who do not require identity cards.
But this implies individuals will need to prove their identity by means of access to the national identity database. Which less than 100 people have access to. Does this suggest a bottleneck to anyone else?
Or is the plan to start with under 100 people having access, then once the data is collected, expand it so that pretty much anyone can access it.
The awful thing about data theft is that it only has to happen once. Once the data is stolen, the theft cannot be reversed. There is no point in acting after the event to beef up security - the data is now no longer secure, since it has been stolen and the stolen copy is no longer controlled by the authorities.
With this in mind, there needs to be a really good reason for putting all this personal identity data about UK residents in a central database.
"Hillier said that human error was involved in the HMRC data loss, whereas fewer than 100 people will have access to the National Identity Register."
.. but she can't even keep the story straight within the same interview ...
"James Clappison MP [..] asked exactly which bodies would be allowed access and in what circumstances. Hillier said that the number of institutions was too many to list .."
So which is it?
Unless this is a revelation that this Government Minister can't count up to 100, there does seem to be a fairly large discontinuity here.
You know what; I don't think they're even really trying any more .. least ways I hope they're not .. if this is them actually trying, then we've got bigger problems than the NIR.
"Asked if the government had gauged public opinion on identity cards, Hillier said the latest official findings were that 60 percent of citizens were in favour."
However, the link under this text goes to an article that says:
"According to an ICM poll, 25 percent of those surveyed thought it was a "very bad" idea [..] 50 percent said the cards were a bad idea in the ICM poll, 47 percent of those questioned still thought they were a good idea. And 12 percent of that group thought they were a "very good" idea."
Either the author is pointing out that she got her maths wrong .. "no = 50%" + "yes = 60%" equates to "110% of those polled expressed an opinion" ... the author has linked to an article about a different survey ... or the article linked to has the ICM numbers wrong.
Inquiring minds etc .... :)
Andrew
Thanks for your talkback. As this story is taken from a partner network, we don't have access to all the resources they used to create this story.
This meant that we didn't actually have a story on our site about the latest government figures so opted to link through to the next most relevant content.
As you know statistics - especially in the hands of the government - are fluid at best hence the reason for the 10 percent difference.
thanks
Fair comment.
Does anyone happen to know what survey she is actually referring to. We all accept, of course, the "lies, damned lies & statistics" effect, particularly in the hands of skilled spin-masters, but there is usually a grain of something on which to base said spin.
I would just to say 'Hear Hear'
BUT I would like to mention one of my greatest concerns about this and nearly everything else put out by anyone in in any kind of authority these days.
Just how much, or how little, should we actually believe or is it all just dissembling.
I fear that the health of a (our) nation is seriously undermined by the normality of the routine untruthfulness of its leaders. I couldn't fit the word 'integrety' into that sentence but, actually, integrity is fast becoming a dim and distant concept, disappearing in the mists of time.
That's
I would just like to say 'Hear Hear'
....................