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.
Identity Documents Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Neville-Jones
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 1 November 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Identity Documents Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
721 c6-7GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 20:50:59 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_675472
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_675472
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_675472