ID Cards in Parliament.

Once again I point out that this is *NOT* a discussion on the merits of ID cards.

It has gone *WAY* beyond that now.

The state, in the form of the current Labour government, wants to fingerprint and track the entire population of the UK. They want to require everyone to notify them when they move house (or be fined or possibly jailed for not doing so). They want to create a computerised National Identity Register to keep tabs on the whole population claiming glibly that the costs and impact will be minimal despite the fact that virtually *NO* Government IT project has ever come in on time, on budget or working properly!

Whether or not you agree with the concepts of this, is there anyone who does not think that such plans should be given the strictest of scrutiny?

Yet the government is attempting to rush the Bill through Parliament such that the Committee Stage (ie where MPs from all parties can examine and discuss the contents of the proposed laws and question experts on their feasibility and validity) must be completed by January 27th.

Since MPs have only just come back from the Xmas recess, this means that this legislation that could have severe impacts on civil liberties has less than a fortnight of Parliamentry time to be examined.

That, however, is not all.

Once the Committee has reported, their findings will be discussed for no more than ONE HOUR in Parliament!

The third reading of the Bill will then be given only *one day* in Parliament.

The Bill will then be passed to the House of Lords, however since this legislation was first introduced in the Commons, the Government can use the Parliament Act to force the Act through no matter what objections the Lords may raise.

Now, as I have said, whether or not you agree with the idea of ID cards, I don't think many people will disagree that such a scheme should be given stringent scrutiny, yet the Labour Government are rushing it through with what can, at best, be described as "unseemly haste".

I would urge everyone who has a view on the subject, pro or anti to contact their MPs and raise their concerns about the way that this country is being railroaded into this scheme without being given a proper chance to object.

To contact your MPs use the following links:

List of MSPs - http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/index.htm
List of AMs - http://www.wales.gov.uk/who/constit_e.htm
Fax Westminster MPs - http://www.faxyourmp.com/

Some other factors to consider:

* * * * *

Government papers released under the 30-year rule show that in the wake
of the IRA Birmingham pub bombings in 1974, the then Labour government
considered ID cards but rejected them because of cost and the impact
they would have on civil liberties.

The ID scheme proposed by the current government is far more expensive
(even in relative terms) and an even greater threat to civil liberties,
with its centralised database, unique National Identity Register Number,
and biometric data. Strange, then, that Charles Clarke thinks it "is an
enhancement, not an inhibition, of civil liberties."
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4139049.stm

* * * * *

SpyBlog has submitted a request, under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA), for the Office of Government Commerce Gateway Reviews of
the Identity Cards Programme. Gateway Reviews are independent financial
reviews carried out by a team of experts at certain fixed key decision
points over the lifetime of a programme.

The government has been reluctant to release information relating to the
proposed ID card scheme, citing "reasons of commercial confidentiality".
Lord Falconer has already indicated that FOIA requests for the legal
guidance on the introduction of ID cards are likely to be declined.
See http://www.spy.org.uk/foia/archives/...teway_rev.html

* * * * *

The government continues to use the introduction of biometric passports
as a justification for ID cards. It claims we have to upgrade our
passports, due to International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)
guidelines, so we may as well have an ID card while we're at it. However
biometric passports are now at the centre of much controversy.

The American Civil Liberties Union has produced a white paper that
highlights a number of privacy and security issues surrounding the ICAO
standard. Insertion of an unencrypted contactless chip into passports
means it will be possible to read the passport data from a distance of
20cm or more. The ACLU also warns that the ICAO standard is a move
towards a global identity card.

Meanwhile the European Union seems set to rethink its biometric passport
proposals after a technical report to the European Council stated that
"the solution envisaged by the draft regulation is not technically
feasible".

Back in the UK, an EU law specialist at the University of Essex says
that the government's proposed biometric passport system could conflict
with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as well as data
protection legislation.

Set against this comes news of the costly US-VISIT programme that
biometrically scans visitors at seaports, airports and border controls
in the United States. The programme has cost 700 million dollars so far.
The LA Times reports that last year 16.9 million foreign visitors were
checked through the system, 372 of whom were arrested or denied entry.
Of the 372 none was linked to terrorism.

* * * * *

The above quotes come from the NO2ID Supporters Newsletter No.12

See http://www.no2id.net/ for more information.

[BBKing]

Well said.

If you've got a Conservative MP, incidentally, ask them why they aren't standing up for the historic traditions of their party and supporting freedom of the individual against an overmighty state using tax revenue to remove people's liberty, which doesn't sound much like Conservative policy to me.

It's probably too much to ask that they support democracy to the extent of refusing to go along with the farce of rubber stamping such poor and counterproductive legislation, but you might raise a spark of conscience by pointing out their betrayal of their party's history.

[BBKing]

Second post, but this is astonishing - the list of anti-ID card MPs on no2id's site has such fellow travellers as Peter Lilley and Dennis Skinner. About as far apart as you can get, politically. Winston S. Churchill would be right at the top of that list too, of course.

Mine (Vince Cable*) isn't on there - I'll be writing him a note. He did vote against it of course, all 55 LD MPs did, and has been pretty vociferous. Just one reason they're getting my vote (again).

http://www.vincecable.prai.co.uk/cab...s.php?story=96

* "If the police need more money, then it should be the £3bn ID card scheme that is cut"

This is a message that someone else posted in another forum in response to my above messages which I also posted there:

* * * * *

Some other links that people may like to look at.

They are Pdf files giving details of the proposed legislation, which may startle people who think this is all a fuss about nothing very much.

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org....ng-commons.pdf

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org....key-points.PDF

I'll quote a few passages below.

Fines for not updating - Individuals are required to notify the SoS (Secretary of State) of any changes in their details held on the register. Failure to do so will result in a fine of up to £1,000. This is particularly relevant for those who move house frequently.

Charges - The SoS can, by regulation, specify fees to be charged for: registration; modification; issue of cards; disclosure applications; and so on. This means there will be considerable ongoing costs for all of us. These ongoing charges are listed by the Home Office as one of the main ways of funding the ID scheme.

Those who need to update their details regularly, e.g. tenants changing address, will need to pay each time for their information to be updated.

If an ID card is issued to an individual and it contains inaccurate information, there is an obligation to notify the SoS of this error and pay a fee for the Register to be updated. The bill does not allow for this fee to be waived if the error is not the individual's fault - so you may need to pay for a civil servant's error.

Damaged/lost/stolen cards - failure to notify the SoS that your card has been damaged/lost/stolen may be deemed a criminal offence. A 'damaged' card means one where, for example, the reader doesn't work. Even if unaware that the card is damaged, an individual will still be committing an offence if he 'has reason to suspect' that it may be.

* * * * *

Still think ID cards aren't going to be a problem for you...?

[Steve H]

I will never be having one, even if it does get through.

I'd be prepared to go to Jail.

Originally Posted by Steve H

I will never be having one, even if it does get through.

I'd be prepared to go to Jail.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

The more people who complain to their MPs the more chance there is that this whole silly business will die a death before we lose our rights or a lot (more) money is wasted.

[BBKing]

I'd be prepared to go to Jail.

The beggars are ahead of you - apparently the raft of new offences around not registering are civil offences and punishments are fines, hence no martyr pensioners going to jail on the news. Just a stinging fine and if you do go to jail it's because you haven't forked out the fine, rather than in defence of freedom.

I'll check this with the old man, but apparently legal aid isn't available for civil cases in the same way as it is for criminal cases.

Of course you can object in writing to the penalty, but then, humorously, the Secretary of State can put the fine up to serve you right for questioning your masters.

Quite apart from what Graham's pointed out - the ongoing tax on us all for having our civil liberties violated for no apparent reason.

Originally Posted by BBKing

The beggars are ahead of you - apparently the raft of new offences around not registering are civil offences and punishments are fines, hence no martyr pensioners going to jail on the news. Just a stinging fine and if you do go to jail it's because you haven't forked out the fine, rather than in defence of freedom.

Lets hope so many people refuse to pay their fine then, what they gonna do then? Where they going to fit a couple of million people (assuming a good pecentage of the nation is totally against ID Cards) British jails are said to be well over crowded.

I can just imagine sitting in a cell and my cellmate introduces himself and says, I robbed a bank, what you in for?

I reply, I didn't want an ID Card.

[Matth]

It's a step in the dark, and for an uncertain improvement in security (if any), it means a definite loss in privacy, and a certain cost of uncertain magnitude, for whatever fee they intend extorting with menaces, the whole project is very likely to follow the same lack of schedule and cost control as any other!

Forget the voluntary phase, to even hope to deliver on supposed promises, it would have to be compulsory, and even then, the same people who would posses an illegal firearm, smuggle drugs etc. are hardly likely to worry about not having an ID card, or will be very pleased to have a fraudulently obtained one, since it would seem that it will be trusted without question.

I'd say we will be less safe, if we replace individual judgement with "foolproof but fallible" technology.

[MovedGoalPosts]

Contrary to the many, in principle I have no objection to the basic concept of an ID card. If it replaces and consolidates the many bits of information that government already has on me (National Insurance, Driver Licence, Passport, etc) it will make my life easier than trying to find numerous documents. It could also assist in removing doubt about the wrong gooder's identity. As far as passports go, one inevitably wonders how compatible any system intorduced here will be with other countries?

One often has to ask whether it is the law abiding who have anything to fear from these cards, or the non law breakers. Government agencies already have so many means of getting information on us that I doubt ID cards would make that much difference. If anything they might reduce some of the beurocratic costs to such agencies when they are determined to collect such data. No dount safeguards will be provided to prevent misuse, just as the data that can be collected now must have some protection.

To me there are three main issues:
1) Will ID cards be secure. Sooner or later someone will work out how to forge them which will negate the major benefits society might gain from them.

2) Will this effectively amount to more taxation on us, by virtue of costs to get the card, update it, etc.

3) Would the card falling into the wrong hands aid identity theft.

Undoubtedly ID cards are a serious issue. A full and frank parliamentary debate, to include the opportunty of Parliament to be properly lobbied is essential. It would be a major change in our lifestyle, and as a minimum should have been something in a party manifesto considered at a general election.

As ever this government will impose it's will on the country with no real consideration for the silent majority.

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

Contrary to the many, in principle I have no objection to the basic concept of an ID card.[...]
As ever this government will impose it's will on the country with no real consideration for the silent majority.

That silent majority would be the "many" to whose views yours are contrary?!

[Bifta]

I'm still waiting for this new brainless home secretary's proposed legislation for ID cards in Northern Ireland, under the Good Friday Agreement, Northern Irish citizens are entitled to choose whether they are "British" or "Irish", so unless the republic bring in a similar scheme there will be no real way of enforcing it.

Are these ID cards for all ages?

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Scott

Are these ID cards for all ages?

16 and over.

Originally Posted by Bifta

16 and over.

Oh great