The Home Office's Strategic Action Plan for the National
Identity Scheme, published in December, said that iris scans were
now just an option, and only fingerprints will be taken from those
enrolling in the scheme.
"When you enrol into the Scheme, your fingerprint biometrics
(all 10 fingerprints) will be recorded and stored in the National
Identity Register," said the document. "A subset of these will be
held on your ID card or passport, in line with International Civil
Aviation Organization standards. The introduction of iris
biometrics also remains an option."
James Hall, the chief executive of the Identity and Passport
Service, told IT Week that the decision was down to cost.
"Collecting every biometric involves significant extra cost and I
believe we can achieve the objective – securing people’s identities
– without irises," he said.
A Home Office spokeswoman said that the government would focus
on facial and fingerprint recognition but that a return to iris
scanning in the future would not be ruled out.
"The reason we are not having iris scanning is to do with
international obligations, most international countries are using
facial and fingerprint recognition so it is to come in line with
that," said the spokeswoman.
The Government had previously planned for a scheme that would
use photographs, iris scans and fingerprints. The revised plan will
make the cards cheaper to make and process but may raise fears
about the level of security of the identification it provides.
The move is the latest policy climb-down for the ID card scheme.
The Government also announced in December that it would no longer
be building one new single database on which the NIR would be
stored.
The information will sit on three existing Government databases.
The Department for Work and Pensions database will hold
biographical information; biometric data, such as fingerprints or
eye scans, will be held on the Home Office system; and the Identity
and Passport Service system will hold the remaining
information.
The decision came despite the fact that the Government had
previously avoided that plan in an attempt to avoid replicating
existing flaws in those systems.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
