The Lib Dems placed a motion against ID cards, in January 2006 (just after Charles Kennedy's resignation), which the Labour group voted down.
I led the initial reaction to the motion and 4 Lib Dem speakers, essentially saying the Lib Dem’s criticism had the feel of a first pass about it – the points had not been thought through.
For instance, they cited the costs of the ID card and database scheme projected by the LSE last summer, seemingly unaware of the retraction of the estimate by the LSE in front of the House of Lords in Autumn.
They also expressed concerns about databases of 60 million records and 10,000 Gigabytes, which I imagine is not a problem to IT technology these days.
The gist of my prepared speech ran as follows -
“My, haven’t the Lib Dems got themselves into a lather over this! Not in Nottingham, but in Westminster. Last November, Simon Hughes had already resolved to go to gaol over this. What - five years in advance?
“A desperate attempt to be interesting. Before they discovered more interesting ways. Except if it means more of Susan Kramer and Sarah Teather, I think you need to think again.
“Of course, there’s a side to this that we can relate to.
“There was a time that you felt that the forces of the state were more interested in tracking political activists and strikers than tackling crime. Now, one suspects any more duties like that upon our Chief Constable, he’d say - what with these resources?
“I expect the Lib Dem group would assert that they were greater authorities on the concept of liberalism than I. And certainly they won’t want any advice from me as they contemplate whether to go “Orange”.
“But there is the notion that liberalism wasn’t about the individual, but about welcoming progress and change as invariable forces for good. Well so much for progress.
“Dismissed out of hand in a ten point page on their web-site.
“Police or Plastic? Good one. Good line. There’s only one choice. End of argument.
“I wonder what the reaction is though, if the question is -
“Police or Video?
“Trickier that. I’ll be honest, I’m not as keen on CCTV as many. That sense of being looked over. The real protection of course a greater mutual respect; better education; a fairer society; tackling people’s grievances at source.
“And yet CCTV is popular and makes people feel more secure.
“Video images from all kinds of places lead to quicker solving of crime.
“Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems have led to quicker arrests.
“And to reducing speed of traffic.
“And to the prospect of charging for using roads at a time when we need a cost of use of the car to reflect the environmental damage they bring.
“So Police or video? False choice.
“Technology has helped the Police.
“DNA has solved notorious crimes - such as the murder of Hilda Murrell - within a relatively short time; after we endured books and plays of conspiracy theories and thousands of interviews for every young man in Shrewsbury 20 years ago.
“Technology has helped the Police.
“And yet we’re prompted with such false choices. Police or Plastic. So loose. Whatever next - Axe the Tax? So loose (and by the way, part of the card scheme is paid for in one-off charges - will the Lib Dems introduce an extra charge for more Police?)
“We have to face up to the world as it is; not how we remember it.
“The United States will require biometric visa for those of us who want to visit, as a forerunner to biometric passports.
“The European Union - remember how we’re in favour of it - have mandated fingerprint and facial biometrics for member states’ passports within the Schengen area. Residence permits and visas for third country nationals will also require biometric information.
“The world has most decidedly moved on, driven in large part by the power of information technology. A significant part of this city’s wealth is now dependent on the concept of people carrying cards and allowing all kinds of personal information to be collected about them, by commercial concerns. It’s why we’ve had the Data Protection Act.
“The world has moved on and so has crime. The convenience IT has brought to many aspects of our life, especially regarding money, bills and shopping, has also brought new threats.
“An I.D card scheme, with the national identity register aims to counter -
- Identity theft - by giving people a secure means of protecting their identity - a growing crime which costs the economy £1.3bn each year.
- illegal immigration and working - by helping to strengthen immigration controls and combat illegal working;
- misuse of public services - by helping ensure public services are used by those entitled to use them and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery
- Organised crime and terrorism - by disrupting the activities of organised criminals and terrorists by making the UK the most difficult place in the world to use false identities.
“Clear ambitions, though perhaps not stated in terms of empowerment.
“We want to give people more confidence about protecting their identity, empowering them to feel more confident about purchasing over the internet, to believe British goods and services are provided by legal workers, to believe their tax and national insurance is going to those who we’ve decided deserve it, and to have more confidence in going about their daily lives.
“The issue now is to test the validity of the ambition as the concepts are turned into designs and then into systems.
“The Lib Dems’ list of arguments against, on their web-site, are more salutary as risks to be managed. Indeed, the in principle arguments, the values arguments are missing from the list, and from the resolution.
“We will work with the government as the proposals develop and be ready to raise the matter again at Exec Board or at Scrutiny if the proposals, as they develop, cause new and significant concerns.
“A free society works through inter-dependence. The debate needs to be over whether the scheme can work, the benefits and how we can protect against abuse; rather than an in principle decision.
“But in the meantime, we can see there is a public demand for the scheme. And for now, the Labour Gov’t is determined to press on. And to challenge the Lib Dems to say what they will actually do, if a national identity register is not allowed to be part of the solution for tackling crime.”
Given the time limit, Cllr. Ian Malcolm then read out –
“We referred earlier today to Phillip Whitehead, and here I hope to place this motion in context, is what he had to say in November 2004, on the Government's central dilemma and on I.D. cards -
“It knows (and, boy, am I telling you this!) that there is a substantial terrorist threat to these islands. It also knows that a liberal society cannot defend its values with persistent illiberalism. It knows that its surveillance, successful up to now, will never be watertight. It knows that every pressure group will clamour to prevent any change in the patterns of observation.
“It can't do right. If our defences are penetrated the terrorists win. If our preventive methods destroy our liberties, the terrorists have also won. ... The State must defend itself. Containment, tracking, surveillance, restraint, may all be part of the mix, but they should not be disproportionate ...
“The case for identity cards is part of this - a measure which empowers the citizens as much as identifies them. There is huge hysteria - on both sides - about this proposal. Those who are against ID cards in principle argue that it is the first step to transforming us into a nation of controlled zombies, not unlike North Korea. In this nightmare world everything about us, at all times, will be recorded and stored for Big Brother's information. The rival lobby claims that with ID cards we can stop terror in its tracks, eliminate benefit frauds, and speed up the interface between the state and the citizen. Neither is entirely correct.
“As someone who carries a Belgian ID card and a variety of plastic passes, I feel no terror at ID provision here, including fingerprint and eye scans.
“The world has changed. We can keep pace with it if we provide information - not to commercial surveys that pester and mislead us, but to an accessible central source. Some forms of illegality, including the movements of terrorist "sleepers" will be curtailed: not much more. A voluntary scheme can only be a pilot. This provision will need to cover the population as a whole. Even then it is quite grotesque to say that terrorist attacks like the one in Madrid can be prevented. They can't.
“But the infrastructure of a terrorist cell, or a sex slave ring, or a benefits fraud, painstakingly assembled piecemeal like a space station in outer space, can be disrupted, weakened and smashed. Don't object to that principle, despite the proper technical doubts.
“David Blunkett was right to bring this forward for debate ...”
Subsequent to the debate, I have corresponded with the Home Office Minister, Andy Burnham by e-mail.
i
Commentaires