Following up another story about the extermination of some weird garden weed (don’t ask), I came across news from the BBC of a public meeting tomorrow afternoon organised by Privacy International on the subject of those compulsory ID cards that our government is so determined to introduce willy nilly, by hook or by crook, or by any other cliché that will work the trick. Bottom line, at the end of the day, when push comes to shove, they’re probably going to go the final five yards on this and bring home the bacon, but let’s at least put a spoke in their frying pan, eh?
In July, the Government announced a six-month public consultation on proposals to establish a compulsory national Identity Card to establish entitlement to benefits and services, including healthcare, welfare benefits, education and public housing. The consultation period ends in January. This event at the LSE will be the only public meeting during the consultation exercise.
The proposals involve issues of vital importance for everyone living in the UK. The government envisions a compulsory registration of the entire population, backed by a national database of “biometric” identifiers such as digital photographs, fingerprints and retina scans. The scheme will form the basis for the matching of personal information between government and private sector organisations, and will involve a legal requirement to produce the card in a wide variety of circumstances. Failure to disclose your card will result in denial of access to a wide range of essential services such as healthcare and education.
Wednesday 11th December 2002, 2.15 – 5.30, The Old Theatre, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE. Chair and session summariser: Simon Davies, Director of Privacy International. Speakers: Lord Falconer of Thoroton, QC, Minister of State for criminal justice; Baroness Sharples (Conservative); Simon Hughes, MP, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary; Dr Nick Palmer MP (Labour); Charles Moore, Editor, The Daily Telegraph; Dr Ross Anderson, Computing Laboratory, Cambridge University; Peter Lilley MP, former Secretary of State for Social Security (Conservative); Terri Dowty, Joint national coordinator, Alliance for Childrens Rights for England; Dr Clarence Lusane, Director of Social Research, The 1990 Trust.
Finally, there’ll be a Q&A with Stephen Harrison, Head of the Entitlement Cards Unit, Home Office. (For more information about the Entitlement Card proposal, see the Privacy International UK ID Card Page.)
Admission free. To reserve a seat, please email london2002@privacy.org or call 0207 955 6579. Media enquiries to 07947 778 247.
Well, at least the garden weed story resulted in the publication of this ID one. Fantastic thing, this Internet.
I’ve just e-mailed Peter Lilley to wish him good luck and included a link to Samizdata.net in the mail.
In 1987, the (Labor) government of Australia attempted to introduce compulsory ID cards. In Australia, it is not normally possible to enact legislation without the assent of both houses of parliament. Governments very seldom control the upper house (the senate) which is elected proportionally. Normally, governments have to do deals with the opposition or with smaller parties to get their legislation enacted. (Governments invariably hate this limitation on their power, while most of the rest of us find it to be a good thing).
As I was saying, the government in 1987 wanted to require compulsory ID cards, and it did not have the numbers in the senate. Therefore, it decided to use a fairly rarely used constitutional provision, which allows a government to call an election over a specific piece of legislation, and if the governement wins the election, the legislation (in exactly the same form as presented before the election) may be enacted without the consent of the senate. (This is a simplification, but this is the gist of it). An election was called over the issue, the government won the election, and it was then pointed out by the oppositiion that the legislation was so badly drafted that it would be completely unenforceable. (Due to the requirment that the legislation be passed in the same form as before the election, it could not be amended without the consent of the senate, so we were back where we started from). At that point the legislation was dropped by the government, and no Australian government has attempted to introduce an ID card since.
We all found this pretty hilarious.
The government proposed something along those lines here about 3 years ago. I believe it related to Mexican (mostly) immigrants.
Counterfiet cards were being issued at the local flea market months before the real ones became available.
Viva capitalism. The idea was quickly dropped.