Identity Documents Bill

My Lords, we turn to a new aspect of the Bill, perhaps an appropriate one at a time when security, particularly aviation security, is at the forefront of our minds. I declare a past interest: for a few months in 2007 I was chairman of the AOA, the Airport Operators Association, before returning to government. I am delighted to be able to move this probing amendment, and I will be interested to hear what the Government’s view is of the points that are made during the debate. Airside workers fall into the category of those employed in sensitive roles and locations where identity is important to public protection. Effective identity assurance acts as the cornerstone of a good personnel security regime at airports and elsewhere. As part of the introduction of identity cards, as the Committee will know, an 18-month trial was developed at Manchester Airport and London City Airport whereby ID cards would be used in place of existing identity verification processes and documentation. We recognised that the ID card had a capacity, first, to provide a single means of identity assurance across airports and, secondly, to facilitate quicker and more efficient pre-employment checking, with obvious benefits to both employers and employees. The ID card would have cut the frequency of the need to renew airside passes from every three years to every 10—thus, we argue, cutting bureaucracy and cost. The added identity certainty provided by the ID card offered benefits, we argue, including improving the portability of reference checks between employers and airports, creating greater flexibility for employers and staff; speeding up pre-employment clearances for cardholders moving from one airside job to another or between airports; kick-starting joint work to explore opportunities for streamlining airside pass regimes; and helping to ensure that everyone using airports was confident about their safety while there. As we learn from reading the Public Bill Committee proceedings held in another place on 29 June, the process of getting an airport ID card used to take eight to 12 weeks from beginning to end. The introduction of the ID card scheme at Manchester Airport reduced this time to just one day for workers renewing their airport passes. The response from workers at Manchester Airport to the scheme was, not surprisingly, pretty positive. I draw the Committee’s attention to Question 66, asked by the honourable Mrs Hillier MP to Mr Mike Fazackerley, the customer services director at Manchester Airport. Mrs Hillier asked: "““You have gone through some of the evaluation. The Bill proposes repealing the scheme, but whether or not the card continues to exist in its current form, can you see the longer term benefits that there would have been, including security improvements, time and cost-saving, and greater convenience, had the pilot scheme been rolled out more widely and made available to others?””." Mr Fazackerley, an expert witness, replied: "““I think that the principal benefits to airport workers are exactly as we have outlined: there is the ability to streamline and speed up, and to make the process of getting an airport pass easier. There were some marginal benefits; for example, we dramatically reduced the amount of data that we were holding on individuals, because we felt that we did not need data that the Government had, but I guess that that is fairly marginal””.—[Official Report, Commons, Identity Documents Bill Committee, 29/06/2010; col. 28.]" My honourable friend Mrs Hillier contradicted Mr Fazackerley to say that she did not think that was a marginal point—I agree with her—as regards reducing the amount of data held on individuals. In addition to benefits in time saved and convenience, the Public Bill Committee heard from Mr Fazackerley of the ability to reduce the volume of data held on individuals on account of the introduction of the ID card scheme. The biometric material contained in the card could be relied upon, and much of the other information collected previously on those who applied for security passes could simply be disposed of. The background to the pilot scheme was carefully worked out by the Department for Transport and developed with airports, the air industry and other interested bodies. They are all rightly eager to discover the benefits and lessons to be learnt from the trial in areas of good practice, cost and time saving, and improved security. In the six months that the scheme was allowed to run, we did see benefits, so why stop the scheme in its tracks now? Even if the Government are determined to scrap the card itself—that is obviously the case—the Minister and her colleagues could apply the lessons that would continue to be learnt from this trial to another identity document—possibly the passport—or simply use them to streamline the onerous and time-consuming security checking processes at airports. They could share the information with other airports and perhaps other industries, such as the nuclear industry where such protection is vital and speed of checking is important. At Question 74, Mrs Hillier said to Mr Fazackerley that, "““you mentioned that you would like to see some of the benefits of the evaluation continue, although the evaluation only got to a certain point. Would you like to keep that going and see the full benefits, perhaps in an attempt to reignite such uses, even with another document?””." He replied: "““Very much so. If we could leave with the same benefits, perhaps through use of the passport, that would be a very positive move””.—[Official Report, Commons, Identity Documents Bill Committee, 29/06/2010; col. 30.]" If the Minister decides not to accept what we think is a sound amendment, will she help us with the plans that the Government have to reform security processes with regard to airside personnel at UK airports? As recent events have shown, the issue of airport security is far from going away. In many ways, it has been a central issue of the past few days. As the noble Baroness has just said in the Chamber, the Government will be addressing it with great concern. The trial was a good idea. From this side of the Committee, we argue that it should be allowed to continue in order to allow all the lessons that can be learnt enough time to reveal themselves for the benefit and safety of all. Finally, I remind myself of the exchanges at the end of the Public Bill Committee in another place where some brand new, energetic Conservative MPs, attempting no doubt and quite properly to win favour with their Whips, asked question after question trying to get poor Mr Fazackerley to say that the whole thing was a complete disaster. Unfortunately for them, he pointedly and repeatedly told them that it was not. It all ended rather sadly for the honourable Member for Amber Valley who, at question 80, asked: "““Have you experienced many passengers flying from Manchester airport using the ID card, rather than a passport?””." I suspect that the reply was supposed to be, ““Oh no, I have not””. But Mr Fazackerley said: "““I honestly could not put numbers on it, but I know from personal experience, and the experience of other people who have had them, that people have used them successfully when flying out of Manchester, yes””.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bill Committee, 29/6/10; col. 31.]" I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate. I beg to move.