Blurred vision for biometric passports

The new high-tech booklet is expensive, you can't get one in a hurry, it won't speed you through immigration, and you may have problems with your photo, says Mark MacKenzie

The first biometric passports were issued to British travellers last month. The widely publicised documents are one of a number of government measures designed to help curb identity fraud and stem the flow of terrorist traffic around the globe. The hi-tech booklets carry an encrypted computer chip loaded with measurements of the holder's face and, as such, represent the most significant change to British travel documents since the end of the Second World War.

Reaction to their arrival has been less than welcoming. Some suggest the move represents an Orwellian infringement of civil liberties. Only last week, one national newspaper reported a leaked government memo claiming that the passports were part of a plan to cede ever more power to the power brokers of the European Union.

For those who monitor the nation's fiscal well-being, of equal concern to the creeping influence of Big Brother is the colossal expense of converting to a format that may yet prove to be an unworkable white elephant. Government figures put the total cost of the conversion in the region of £60m, including bespoke presses imported from Japan and a purpose-built production facility at a secret location in the north of England. And the changes won't just effect the Government's pocket: from 1 December, the cost of a new 10-year adult passport rose 25 per cent (from £42 to £51), to help pay for the changeover.

So what does the new document look like? In terms of its size and shape, your new document will look much the same as your old one. The crucial difference lies in the small data chip inserted into the back cover, which contains information on the bearer's facial details (iris colour, precise facial measurements). The security industry refers to such a record as a "facial biometric". Incorporated into the new-style passport, it will join other devices designed to prevent duplication, including a sophisticated new watermark.

Such has been the scale of the operation that on 1 April (yes, really) the Government introduced a new agency specifically to manage the project. From now on, those wishing to renew or acquire a passport will, ultimately, be at the mercy of the officers of the ominous sounding Identity and Passport Service, although the issuing of documents will remain the responsibility of the UK Passport Service (UKPS).

From August, all those applying for a new passport will be expected to attend an interview at one of seven UKPS offices around the country. The move, some observers suggest, has come at the behest of an increasingly paranoid American government. Regardless of whether or not this is the case, the UKPS would do well to take note of recent events in France, another EU country in the process of going biometric. Last month, French passport authorities became embroiled in a row that resulted in huge numbers of travellers being told they could face a 90-day delay to any travel to the US. It could cost Jacques Chirac's administration hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation.

Since October last year, the US has required visitors carrying newly issued passports to ensure that they are of the biometric variety. Those not in possession of a passport loaded with a biometric chip require a special visa. As a result of confusion between Washington and Paris, the estimated four million French nationals whose passports have expired since October now need such a visa. Consequently, more than 24,000 have applied to the US consulate in Paris, according to newspaper reports, an establishment more used to issuing 8,000 visas in an entire year. The French experience has been an expensive one, with transatlantic bookings estimated to be down by as much as 30 per cent and conservative estimates of the combined loss to tourism on both sides of the Atlantic at around €500m (£350m).

In Britain, the early dispatches have been equally uninspiring. By far the most contentious issue has been the submission of photographs that meet the new biometric criteria. The House of Commons heard recently that since the introduction of new rules on photographs last September, the UKPS has dealt with close to 800,000 applicants wishing to obtain or renew passports. Of those, about 100,000 have been rejected on the grounds that their photographs are unsuitable for a biometric reading.

It only takes a quick visit to the UKPS website to see why so many confused applicants have had their photographs rejected. The two photographs required for a new passport must, according to official advice, be "identical", "recent" and "sharp". Which is all fair enough. Yet establishing whether or not your face covers "65-75 per cent of the photograph" is rather more difficult. As is striking a suitably "neutral expression, with your mouth closed, your eyes open and clearly visible".

If you happen to be visually impaired, ensuring "sufficient definition between the face and background" could prove tricky, as could scanning digital photographs at 1200dpi if you're even mildly technophobic. And while it's worth pointing out that the website does offer examples of photographs that are both acceptable and not, the line between pass and fail looks a precariously fine one.

How successful biometric passports will be in fighting terrorist traffic around the globe remains to be seen. What you can be sure of is that they won't speed you through immigration any more quickly than their predecessor. And whatever you do, don't apply for one in a hurry.