“I can’t be sure of the numbers of people who are illegals in this country, for the same reason that the previous government couldn’t.”
Tony Blair, The Paxman Interviews, 20 April 2005

“Until we change the system of checking people in and out of the country, … until we have ID cards, and until we have visas which have biometrics with them then we will not be able to give appropriate and accurate estimates of the numbers of people who have got permission to come into this country, or who are not here legally.”
Des Browne, Immigration Minister, Radio 4 Today programme, 21 April 2005

“Up to 570,000 illegal immigrants are living in the UK, according to a new Home Office estimate…

The Home Office says its best estimate is 430,000 but the number could be between 310,000 and 570,000.”
BBC News Online, 30 June 2005

And guess what comes next…?

“Immigration Minister Tony McNulty said the figures were a “best guess”.

Mr McNulty said the estimate underlined the need for identity cards.”

Well, you do surprise me - what do we get tomorrow - another lecture from ‘Buff’ Hoon on the evils of public cynicism about Government?

In case anyone’s wondering how the Government managed to arrive at this figure - other than the obvious method of pulling numbers out of their arse in a desperate attempt to shore up declining public support for ID Cards - the answer is by using the following formula…

Total foreign born-population in UK minus estimated total legal foreign-born population = illegal migrant population

In other words, the tried and trusted research methodology of guesswork, a biro and the back of a - soon to be banned in public places - fag packet.

Sorry but you’ve broken the bullshit-o-meter which is now covered in more crap that the streets of Pamplona.

Still as the Government wants us to believe that ID cards are the solution to the problem of illegal immigration, let’s not be churlish and put this idea to a simple test of logic…

1. It is not possible to prevent people entering this country illegally.

Even if we did manage to ’stop up’ the official ports of entry, the British mainland still has 11,072.76 miles of coastline - according to the supremely reliable Ordinance Survey.

If someone, whether a terrorist, economic migrant or even a genuine asylum seeker wants to get into the UK badly enough then they will do it and nothing short of building a fucking wall around the entire UK will stop them - assuming they don’t think of flying over the wall in a light aircraft and landing in one of the nice flat fields to be found all across the Eastern part of England.

2. Even if it were possible to prevent people entering the country illegally, which it isn’t, there are still anything up to 570,000 illegal immigrants already here - according to these new Home Office ‘figures’ - who can’t be stopped at the border because they’re already in the country.

ERGO

For ID Cards to serve any purpose in tackling immigration they must be used to identify illegal immigrants AFTER they enter the UK in order that they can be arrested and deported.

IT NOW FOLLOWS THAT

3. The simple fact of issuing ID Cards will not help to identify illegal immigrants.

By definition these people are here illegally and therefore not in the ’system’ -

They pay no tax or national insurance.
They don’t claim welfare benefits.
They are not on the register of electors.
They will not have a bank account unless it is in a false identity obtained with false documents.
They don’t pay council tax, or send their children - if they have any with them and most probably don’t - to school.
They are also most probably not registered with a doctor or with the NHS.
If they have a car, they have no licence, no insurance and no MOT.

They are NOT in the system as it exists today.

How can we be sure of this?

Because if they were in anyway in the system, they would be traceable and if they were traceable they could be arrested and deported already without the need for ID cards and there wouldn’t be a problem.

THIS LEADS US TO

4. It is not the ID Card that will identify an illegal immigrant but the absence of an ID Card.

Once introduced the Government will be able to identify illegal immigrants because they will not have an ID Card…

HOWEVER

…This will ONLY be true if, or rather when, ID Cards are made compulsory for everyone. Until then, the fact that someone does not possess an ID card does not automatically prove that they are an illegal immigrant.

BUT

5. Even when ID cards become compulsory you still have the problem of how you identify whether someone has an ID card or not…

Given that illegal immigrants are not in habit of wandering around our town centres wearing conspicuous ‘Make Deportation History’ wristbands, the only way of identifying them is for the Police to stop them and ask to see their ID Card.

BUT AGAIN

This will only work if it is not only compulsory to have an ID card but if we are also compelled to carry that card at all times.

If carrying your ID card is not compulsory then the most that the Police could do is, as with motorists caught for minor traffic offences, issue you with a notice requiring you to attend a Police Station with your documents…

… and, of course, not only would an illegal immigrant who has been given such a notice not turn up but they would also more than likely skip town so as to lessen the risk that they may be spotted and arrested.

ERGO

In order for ID Cards to assist in identifying and arresting illegal immigrants not only must it be compulsory to have one but it must also be compulsory to carry it at all times and ONLY if both conditions are satisfied would the Police be in a position to detain someone they suspect may be an illegal immigrant while their identify is checked.

WHICH LEADS INEXORABLY TO

6. Even if all these conditions are satisfied, the Police must still identify a potential illegal immigrant in order to stop them and ask them to verify their identity by producing an ID card.

BUT

7. How will the Police be able to differentiate between an possible illegal immigrant and a genuine citizen without first stopping them and asking them to produce their ID card?

They won’t be able to with any degree of certainty, which means that the decision to stop someone and check their ‘papers’ or not will have to be based on a ‘value judgement’ - i.e. a guess - based on whether the individual officer suspects that they may be an illegal immigrant?

AND THIS WILL OF COURSE MEAN THAT

8. Such decisions will inevitably be based on an individual Police Officer’s perception of whether an individual looks like the may be an illegal immigrant, i.e. whether and to what extent they look ‘foreign’.

AH BUT…

… What about the regulations governing the Police powers of ’stop and search’ which state that they should only use such powers without your consent if they have a reasonable suspicion that you may be carrying a firearm, offensive weapon, controlled substance, stolen goods or may be ‘going equipped’ to commit a burglary or other theft?

Well, you’ll have noticed straight away that all the situations in which the Police are permitted to use the stop and search powers relate to situations which are or may lead to a criminal offence being committed…

…and by definition an illegal immigrant has entered the country illegally and has, therefore, committed a criminal offence.

But even were than not sufficient to justify the Police stopping someone for ‘looking foreign’ in order check their identity then remember that the people who are introducing ID Cards are the same people who can change the law to allow the Police to stop and search people on suspicion that they may be an illegal immigrant anyway.

…

If you are Black and live in Britain, you are eight times more likely to be stopped and searched by the Police than if you are White.

If you are Asian, you are three times more likely to be stopped and searched by the Police than if you are White - and these figure come from an analysis of the British Crime Survey, carried out for the Home Office, using data from 2000, i.e. before the 11th September attack on the World Trade Centre and ‘The War Against Terror’ - or T.W.A.T. as it should more properly be called.

How much more likely will you be to be stopped by the Police if you are not white, once searching out illegal immigrants becomes part of their routine duties thank to ID Cards is anyone’s guess but one thing you can be sure of is that the disparity in stop and search rates between White and non-White communities will head in only one direction.

Up.

All of which brings me to the final slab of bullshit for today, fresh from the Second Reading debate on the ID Cards Bill…

Diane Abbott (Hackney North & Stoke Newington, Lab)

On the impact of ID cards—which must necessarily become compulsory in due course—on black and minority ethnic communities, the whole House accepts that the Bill does not extend the powers of the police. But it does extend the pretexts on which the police might stop people. All of us who live and work in our inner cities know what that could mean. The Home Secretary should take seriously the concerns of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Muslim Council of Britain, because the last thing that we need is legislation that will further turn the screw on community relations in our big towns.

Charles Clarke (Secretary of State, Home Office)

I do take seriously the concerns of various organisations representing minority ethnic communities, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), with whom we have also discussed this point in the past. I do not accept her argument that the Bill offers a pretext for police to behave differently from how they do now. The powers are there right now for the police to act in the way that they do. The ID card does not change that regime…

…which is, of course, complete and utter bollocks as everything that precedes in this article demostrates - unless, of course, the Government is lying to us about the importance of ID Cards in tackling illegal immigration to the UK.

You choose which interpretation you prefer.

More second reading stuff…

Tony McNulty (Minister of State, Home Office)

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) was wrong in his supposition that there will be an open book for adding data to the database. Clauses 1, 3 and 43 and schedule 1 make that clearr. To suggest that DNA, health records, criminal records or other medical records can be included is plumb wrong.

I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago…

In part two of the ID Cards debate bullshit guide I’ve decided to look at the ‘but we need to do it anyway’ arguments being put forward in relation to the inclusion of biometric information in passports.

We’ll start with a couple of extracts from the debate itself…

Charles Clarke (Secretary of State, Home Office)

In the case of Europe, facial image and fingerprint biometrics, in line with those standards, will be required in passports issued by EU states under Council Regulation 2252/2004. Facial biometrics must be introduced by August 2006, and fingerprint biometrics three years after the technical specification has been agreed. All EU member states will have to introduce the same biometrics into the EU common format residence permits and visas for nationals of non-EU states.

The United States has issued a further deadline for visa waiver programme countries to introduce facial image biometric passports from 26 October 2006. Biometric passports, or e-passports, incorporate an integrated circuit chip capable of storing the biographic information from the data page, and a digitised photograph or other biometrics. Once all those United States requirements are implemented, nationals of those countries not issuing biometric passports will require a visa to visit the United States.

Now, at this point in time, Charles Clarke’s statement is wholly misleading, and its only after this intervention from Lynne Jones MP

I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks and for giving way. What is the status of the proposed EU-wide passport with fingerprint biometrics that he mentioned earlier? Is it just a proposal or a definite agreement?

…that Clarke admits to the full position regarding the EU and its own biometric passport requirements.

On her first point, as far as the United States is concerned, it will do what it does irrespective of anything else. On the European Union, the regulation to which I referred is binding on the Schengen countries, although not necessarily on us. However, it is expected that all EU member states will have to introduce the same biometrics into the EU common format residence permits, and into visas for nationals of non-EU states.

Now, had Lynne Jones not asked her question, would Charles Clarke have gone on to state that the EU directive he referenced does not apply to the UK?

We’ll never know for sure, unless he choose to publish the notes for his speech.

However, there is the matter of the highlighted section above where he uses the phrase ‘not necessarily on us’.

Not necessarily?

What the actual EU directive says is rather more uneqivocal in tone and content…

This Regulation constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (3). The United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

Not necessarily is, in actual fact, not bound by this directive at all, as The Register reported back in December 2004 - so much for it being part of parcel of our membership of the European Union.

Before we leave the question of EU requirements, there is one move very revealing phrase in his statement.

In the first extract from Clarke’s speech I highlighted the following statement:

Facial biometrics must be introduced by August 2006, and fingerprint biometrics three years after the technical specification has been agreed.

You’ll note that fingerprint biometrics will only be required by the ‘Schengen’ countries - which doesn’t include the UK, Ireland and Denmark - three years after the technical specification has been agreed.

In other word, the Schengen countries, who are working together and without UK involvement to develop the technical standards for the EU’s biometric passport system have not yet agreed exactly how and in what format fingerprint data will be recorded and, therefore, if the UK presses ahead with its own system there is no absolute guarantee that biomtric fingerprint data stored on our own passports and ID cards will be compatible with or meet the EU standards, which have yet to be determined.

This is not dissimilar to a situation which arose in he NHS as few years back where, in deciding which e-mail system to use as standard within the NHS, it chose to go with a standard called ‘X400′ rather than use the SMTP and POP3 standards which, even then, were ubiquitous across the whole of the internet.

This worked fine until the publication of the Government’s e-Government standards which choose to standardise on… SMTP and POP3.

What it might have cost to retool the NHS’s e-mail systems to a different standard has, as far as I know, never been revealed - Written question, anyone? It may not have been that much, as the NHS almost exclusively uses Microsoft Exchange which supports both standards, it may have cost a fortune. I don’t know. but what this does show is the perils of jumping the gun on technical standards and trying to preempt where everyone else is going.

Unless the UK is prepared to wait for the EU to define its standards for biomertic fingerprinting, then there is a possibility of us ending up in a VHS/Betamax situation which would substantially increase costs either by having to recall and reconfigure all UK passports issued with the ‘wrong’ standard or implement conversion software, at increased cost, to fix the compatibility problems.

What then of Clarke’s other comments, about the need to include biometrics to meet US standards for its visa waiver scheme.

Well apart from noting that its introduction has already been delayed several times due to not enough countries being ready - it was first set to be introduced in 2002 - the US system requires only biometric facial data, a digital photograph, and not biometric fingerprints, as this extract from the website of the Department of Homeland Security shows…

HOW IT WORKS: ENTRY

* Many of the entry procedures in place today remain unchanged and are familiar to international travelers.
* U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers will review travel documents, such as a visa and passport, and ask questions about the visitor’s stay in the U.S.
* The new, inkless digital “fingerscanner” is easy to use. The visitor will be asked to put one and then the other index finger on a glass plate that will electronically capture two fingerprint scans.
* Visitors also will be asked to look into a camera and their picture will be taken.
* The enhancements to the entry procedures add minimal time to the process - only seconds in most cases.

And…

ENHANCING SECURITY

* Digital “fingerscans” will be checked against a database of known and suspected terrorists.

In other words, the US does not require passports to hold biometric fingerprint data under this scheme as it will take your fingerprints, itself, on entry, and check them against its own database of known and suspected terrorists.

No need, therefore, for the inclusion of fingerprints on UK passports to meet US standards.

Two posts in and the needle on the bullshit detector is already rising steadily - and there’s still plenty more to come.

The Beeb have announced the panelists for tomorrow’s ’special edition’ of Question Time, which is apparently being co-produced by kids from the four winners of the Schools Question Time Challenge.

The panel starts off promisingly enough with Tony Benn, who’s always good value for your licence fee when he appears and bound to teach the youngster’s a thing or two.

Next up is Lembit Opik, who can be pretty entertaining on his day, especially if you get him on to the subject of killer asteroids. Like Boris he takes a bit of ribbing over his minor eccentricities in good spirit.

Then there’s Justine Greening for the Tories - first thoughts… who?

Turns out she’s one of the new intake - Putney - and seems to be pretty pissed off about aircraft noise from Heathrow but otherwise not much else to report.

Sadly, it them takes a turn for the worse - much worse.

It’s difficult to decide which is the poorer of the two non political guests, Otis Ferry - a candidate for nouveau riche twit of the year if ever there was one - or June Sarpong, a Channel 4 presenter about whom I can honestly say that her talent and charm know no beginning.

Anyone know if it’s possible to programme a TiVO just to record the bits where Tony and Lembit are talking?

I’ve set up a new subsection called ‘ID Cards second reading’ specifically to make a series of posts, using extracts from the second reading debate to look at the questions asked by members and the Government’s response to them.

Think of this as a handy-dandy, easy to use, bullshit detector.

We’ll start with this exchange between Nick Gibb and Charles Clarke - extracts come from Hansard by way of the excellent ‘They Work For You’.

Extract

Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Con)

Given that the identity card database will have details of everyone’s fingerprints and other biometric information, what assurances can the Secretary of State give that that database will not be used routinely by the police in their normal investigation processes so that, for example, a fingerprint left on a pen in a bank will not lead to innocent people bring questioned and having to explain their whereabouts on the day that that bank was robbed?

Charles Clarke (Secretary of State, Home Office)

I can give the assurance that the law of the land requires that the police can operate only in accordance with the legal powers that they have at the moment. That is a very important requirement. It is right that police and security services should have powers as regards national security or serious and organised crime—whatever the issue might be. The House has agreed that it is right that they should have powers in those circumstances so that we can protect ourselves, but—I emphasise the point that I made earlier—those rights are already set out in the existing law and are not changed by this legislation.

Quiz Question:

Your starter for ten is…

If the Police were, as in Nick Gibb’s example, to find a fingerprint on a pen in a bank that had just been robbed, would they?

A. Check the fingerprint records in the Police National Computer - which is incomplete and only stores information on people who have previously arrested - find nothing and assume that the pen had no relevance to the robbery.

OR

B. Check the fingerprint against the National Identity Register, which will have everyone’s fingerprints, identify who’s fingerprint it is and send a couple of officer’s round to the their house to ask them to prove where they were at the time the bamk was robbed.

What the Home Secretary’s answer really means.

Despite his best efforts to avoid answering the question be refering to other legislation, one of the statutory purposes of the Bill is to assist with the prevention and detection of crime - all crime, not just serious and organised crime - so you can expect that the Police will be getting a substantial ‘heavy user’ discount on whatever it costs to access the register as checking fingerprints against it will be a matter of routine.

Mr Clarke is correct that the Bill does not change the rights of the Police as set out in other legislation - this will be found mainly int he Police and Criminal Evidence Act. What it does change is the information it will have instantly at its disposal - a complete register containing the fingerprints of every adult in the UK as opposed to one which only contains the fingerprints of people who have been arrested, at some time, by Police.

Citizen: Ah. I’d like to have a debate about Identity Cards, please.
Receptionist: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
Citizen: No, I haven’t, this is my first time.
Receptionist: I see. Well, do you have any proof of identity. An identity card, perhaps?
Citizen: Well, actually no. That’s what I’ve come here to talk about.
Receptionist: Oh. So you’d like to have an Identity Card, then.
Citizen: Well, no. That what I’d like to debate, if possible.
Pause
Receptionist: Mr. McNulty’s free, but he’s a little bit conciliatory.
Ahh yes, Try Mr. Clarke; room 12.
Citizen: Thank you.

(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

Mr Campbell: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
Citizen: Well, I was told outside that…
Mr Campbell: Don’t give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
Citizen: What?
Mr Campbell: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
Citizen: Look, I CAME HERE FOR A DEBATE ABOUT IDENTITY CARDS, I’m not going to just stand…!!
Mr Campbell: OH, oh I’m sorry, I thought you were a journalist.
Citizen: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Mr Campbell: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
Citizen: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Mr Campbell: Not at all.
Citizen: Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!

(Walk down the corridor)
Citizen: (Knock)
Mr Clarke: Come in.
Citizen: Ah, Is this the right room for a debate about Identity Cards?
Mr Clarke: I’ve already given you a full and frank explanation of the Government’s position on this..
Citizen: No you haven’t.
Mr Clarke: Yes I have.
Citizen: When?
Mr Clarke: Just now.
Citizen: No you didn’t.
Mr Clarke: Yes I did.
Citizen: You didn’t
Mr Clarke: I did!
Citizen: You didn’t!
Mr Clarke: I’m telling you I did!
Citizen: You did not!!
Mr Clarke: Oh, I’m sorry, just one moment. Is this a full debate or is there a gullotine in force?
Citizen: Erm, the lady at reception didn’t say.
Mr Clarke: Ah, thank you. Must be guillotined then. Anyway, I did.
Citizen: You most certainly did not.
Mr Clarke: Look, let’s get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
Citizen: No you did not.
Mr Clarke: Yes I did.
Citizen: No you didn’t.
Mr Clarke: Yes I did.
Citizen: No you didn’t.
Mr Clarke: Yes I did.
Citizen: No you didn’t.
Mr Clarke: Yes I did.
Citizen: You didn’t.
Mr Clarke: Did.
Citizen: Oh look, this isn’t a debate.
Mr Clarke: Yes it is.
Citizen: No it isn’t. It’s just contradiction.
Mr Clarke: No it isn’t.
Citizen: It is!
Mr Clarke: It is not.
Citizen: Look, you just contradicted me.
Mr Clarke: I did not.
Citizen: Oh you did!!
Mr Clarke: No, no, no.
Citizen: You did just then.
Mr Clarke: Nonsense!
Citizen: Oh, this is futile!
Mr Clarke: No it isn’t.
Citizen: I came here for a good debate about Identity Cards.
Mr Clarke: No you didn’t; no, you came here for a debate.
Citizen: An debate isn’t just contradiction.
Mr Clarke: It can be.
Citizen: No it can’t. An debate is a formal discussion of opposing points and arguments intended to establish or dispute a particular proposition.
Mr Clarke: No it isn’t.
Citizen: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
Mr Clarke: Look, if I debate Identity Cards with you and you oppose the Government’s position, I must take up a contrary position.
Citizen: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
Mr Clarke: Yes it is!
Citizen: No it isn’t!
Mr Clarke: Yes it is!
Citizen: Debate is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
Mr Clarke: No it isn’t.
Citizen: It is.
Mr Clarke: Not at all.
Citizen: Now look.
Mr Clarke: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
Citizen: What?
Mr Clarke: That’s it. Good morning.
Citizen: I was just getting interested.
Mr Clarke: Sorry, the debate’s over.
Citizen: But didn’t actually debate anything about Identity Cards!
Mr Clarke: I’m afraid we did.
Citizen: We didn’t.
(Pause)
Mr Clarke: I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to debate anymore.
Citizen: What?!
Mr Clarke: If you want me to go on debating, you’ll have to head over to the House of Lords.
Citizen: Yes, but that was never a debate, just now. Oh come on!
Mr Clarke: (Hums)
Citizen: Look, this is ridiculous.
Mr Clarke: I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to debate this matter any further. Parliamentary rules, you know!
Citizen: Oh, all right.
(Citizen leaves room)
Mr Clarke: Thank you. Don’t forget to register for your Identity Card on the way out.
(Walks down the stairs. Opens door.)

Citizen: I want to complain.
Mr Blair: You want to complain! Look at these shoes. I’ve only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through.
Citizen: No, I want to complain about…
Mr Blair: If you complain then we do listen and learn… and then nothing happens, you might as well not bother.
Citizen: Oh!
Mr Blair: Oh my back hurts, it’s not a very fine day and I’m sick and tired of this office.

(Slams door. walks down corridor, opens next door.)

Citizen: Hello, I want to… Ooooh!
Mr Prescott: No, no, no. Hold your head like this, then go Waaah. Try it again.
Citizen: uuuwwhh!!
Mr Prescott: Better, Better, but Waah, Waah! Put your hand there.
Citizen: No.
Mr Prescott: Now..
Citizen: Waaaaah!!!
Mr Prescott: Good, Good! That’s it.
Citizen: Stop hitting me!!
Mr Prescott: What?
Citizen: Stop hitting me!!
Mr Prescott: Stop hitting you?
Citizen: Yes!
Mr Prescott: Why did you come in here then?
Citizen: I wanted to complain.
Mr Prescott: Oh no, that’s next door. This is the Deputy Prime Minister’s office.
(Citizen leaves room)

Citizen: What a stupid concept.

The Identity Cards Bill passed its second reading with a majority of 31 and, unsurprising, the Government have moved a programme motion - otherwise called a ‘guillotine’ - restricting debate at the committee stage of the Bill to 19th July and leaving no time for either the Public Accounts Committee or Home Affairs Select Committee to examine the detailed costs of the Bill.

Translation - Rush job with as little time for debate/scrutiny as they can get away with.

Better still, Charles Clarke has announced that he will cap the cost of ID cards to the public, although he won’t say to how much at this stage.

How? How will he do that given the Government’s track record on delays and cost overruns on large scale IT project, where a doubling of costs to get the system working - if it works at all - is not so unusual.

Now I’m no economist - maybe if Tim Worstall pops by then he could critique what follows - but the Home Office’s position is ID cards have to be self-financing. There’s no Treasury bail-out in the offing if it does go pear shaped, at least not right now and possibly not ever as we can take it as read that if the Treasury is not going to put up any money for this system then, privately at least, Gordon Brown is unlikely to be much of supporter.

So with a cap in place, what happens if there is a cost overrun, and a big one. Where, if that happens - and past experience suggests that its more a case of ‘when’ and ‘how much’ than ‘if’ - will the money come from to cover the costs of the system?

After all, if the cost to individuals is capped then, presumably, the only other way to make the system pay is going to be either by -

a. ‘losing’ some of the implementation costs in other budgets by recharging part of the total cost to those Government departments and public sector agencies who make use of identity verification. So if the DWP want to use identity verification on welfare benefits claimants or the NHS want in to ascertain individual ‘entitlements’ to services or even just identify people who ship up in A&E unconscious in order to find their medical records in its own, hugely expensive - and over budget - system, then they have to pay for the equipment and services like any other third party user…

…except that if you lay off the cost that way then you’re taking additional money out of departmental budgets which means that the Treasury either has to give them more money - and raise taxes - or they will have to make cost savings in other areas, which generally means a reduction in services.

OR

b. increase costs to other third party users of the identity verification service, most of whom, like banks, building societies, insurance companies, etc. are in the private sector.

Ah, but now you start taking a few risks.

Price your services too high and the cost to the private sector could limit the uptake of these services. This is basic ‘bottom line’ market economics - business will only pay for a service if the benefits of the service to its business outweigh its costs.

And even if the private sector does pay the increased costs well then the other bottom line in business kicks in- whatever business has to pay gets passed on to us in increased prices so that they recoup their costs.

It doesn’t matter how you slice it, we end up paying the bill - the full bill - for ID cards and the National Identity Register. The only thing we don’t know at this stage is either how big that final bill will be and how much of it will it obvious that we’re paying in direct charges as opposed to what we end up paying for indirectly in either increased taxes, reduced services or higher charges when we but goods and services from businesses.

That’s what ’self-financing’ really means - we, the citizen, pay for everything one way or another…

…and on the basis of a simple ‘back of a fag packet calculation’ using the Home Office’s figures - £6bn split amongst 44 million adults and no concessions, so pretty much about as good as their own figures which look to have been pulled of Charles Clarkes arse for all they reflect the real costs - that comes to around £130-140 per person rising to double or even treble that figure is the LSE is anywhere near close in its estimates.

Assuming everyone pays - which I won’t be - so that’s already an extra £140 that you lot whole support this hideous bill are going to have to find between you for starters - assuming it even works in the first place.

On November 15th 2004, The Children’s Bill 2004 received the Royal Assent and became the Children’s Act 2004, having passed its third reading in the House of Lords by a mere 12 votes.

Reading what the DfES has to say about this Act it would seem benign enough -

The overall aim is to encourage integrated planning, commissioning and delivery of services as well as improve multi-disciplinary working, remove duplication, increase accountability and improve the coordination of individual and joint inspections in local authorities. The legislation is enabling rather than prescriptive and provides local authorities with a considerable amount of flexibility in the way they implement its provisions.

However, while mooching around the Information Commissoner’s website this morning - I was actually looking for his paper on the ID Cards Bill, but with no joy - I came across this ‘Memorandum to the Education and Skills Select Committee’ which proves, to my mind conclusively, that not only could function creep extend the use of the National Identity Register into areas which the Goverment has yet to reveal publicly, but that function creep will happen - and has already been planned for - and that provisions are already in place for new database systems which will ultimately be linked back to the National Identity Register.

What, you might think, has an Act which is supposed to improve children’s services, got to do with the National Identity Register?

Well, this -

In September 2003 the Green Paper Every Child Matters put forward Government proposals for local authorities to set up and maintain databases covering all children living in the local authority area. These databases were to contain basic identification and contact details for the child and their carers, contacts with the universal services of education and health, and contacts with other child care professionals who were dealing professionally with the child. It was also proposed that child care professionals would be able to put on an individual child’s record flags indicating that they had concerns about that child.

You’ll note that this proposal covers ALL CHILDREN, not just those about whom their may be good reason for official concern within Social Services, Schools or the NHS.

So what information will this new and largely unpublicised ‘universal’ Children’s Register contain?
Read the rest of this entry »

Forget the complaints from Opposition MP’s about the scheduling of the second reading of the ID cards Bill to coincide with today’s Internation Fleet Review marking that the start of celebrations of the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar.

The Government could not have chosen a more apposite day for the debate given that its response to mounting opposition to the Identity Cards Bill takes it lead from Nelson’s famous actions at the Battle of Copenhagen where, holding a telescope to his blind eye, he ignored the intructions of the commander, Sir Hyde Parker, to disengage from battle with the words:

“I have only one eye,– I have a right to be blind sometimes… I really do not see the signal!”

Only Blair has no right to blind. Britain expects better from its elected leaders.

The Government’s proposals have been ruthlessly torn apart by almost every single independent commentator, every informed opinion that is neither aligned with Government nor seeking to profit from the introduction of this system.

The London School of Economics states that;

“the proposals currently being considered by Parliament are neither safe nor appropriate… the proposals are too complex, technically unsafe, overly prescriptive and lack a foundation of public trust and confidence… The concept of a national identity system is supportable, but the current proposals are not feasible.”

The majority of the IT industry press is against the proposals as they stand;

“The pro-ID arguments the Government has put forward… have been well rehearsed, some of them over a period of years, and are as flimsy now as they were in previous Parliamentary sessions.” - John Lettice, The Register

The Public Sector’s record in managing large scale technology projects is nothing short of abysmal;

“Anthony Sampson wrote in Who Runs This Place that the Civil Service doesn’t do project management, a statement backed up by the National Audit Office blaming the Home Office for ‘poor specification of expected outputs, weaknesses in service monitoring and inadequate control of purchases.” - Political Hack, May 28th

Government seems not to ever heard of the ‘Software Crisis’ despite it having been first identified back in the 1960’s - the suggestion, in the Wikipedia reference, that this has been ‘addressed’ by process models is, to say the least, premature.

Liberty expresses concerns about the civil liberties implications of a Bill which changes, fundamentally, the relationship between the citizen and the state;

“A cost of billions of pounds would be bad enough if the Prime Minister’s white elephant weren’t quite so dangerous.

When you add this to the huge social cost for race relations and traditional freedoms, you have an extremely rogue beast- born of political machismo rather than concern for Britain’s safety.â€? - Shami Chakrabarti

Then there’s NO2ID’s analysis

“Without reference to the courts or any appeals process, the Home Secretary may cancel or require surrender of an identity card, without a right of appeal, at any time. Given that the object of the scheme is that an ID card will be eventually required to exercise any ordinary civil function, this amounts to granting the Home Secretary the power of civic life and death.”

And my own humble efforts;

“…the National Identity Register does not create a ’surveillance state’. It does however put in the place the means the create such a state by providing a mechanism which enables a wide range of personal information held in a variety of locations, not all of them in government by any means, to be connected together to form a comprehensive ‘picture’ of who you are, where you are and, more importantly, what you’ve been doing.”

Even the Information Commission, Richard Thomas, has come out against the current proposals, describing them as “excessive and disproportionate” and noting that they could become part of a new “surveillance society”.

Faced with this opposition, informed opposition from a wide range of people who understand fully how databases, and therefore, the National Identity Register, could be used and misused, how does the Government respond?

It refuses to engage in any detailed debate with opponents, attempting to discredit the LSE’s research without ever revealing sufficient details of the practicalities and costs of its own proposals to allow for a full independent analysis to be carried out.

Blair has even said, only yesterday that it was too early to discuss a price cap on costs and argued that the legislation being sought by ministers was merely to allow government to investigate the practicalities.

Merely to allow government to investigate the practicalities? Isn’t that something you do before you introduce legislation?

Does this really suggest what I think it suggests? That the Government is introducing legislation for ID cards without knowing either that the system will work or how much it will actually cost? That my civil liberties and freedoms, not least the freddom to live my life free from unwarrented surveillance by Government are being denuded on the basis of little more than a bunch of back of a fag packet calculations based on numbers being pulled out of the Home Office’s collective arse?

The longer this debate goes on, the weaker the Government’s position becomes. Support for ID cards is dropping and will continue in free fall the more obvious it becomes that the Government’s ‘indicative’ costs for ID card are woefully underestimated.

At the same time, the Government’s other arguments get weaker by the day - this morning Charles Clarke, appearing on the BBC’s Breakfast news, suggested that one of reasons for having ID cards and the National Identity Register was to make data held on other databases, presumably tax records, medical records and even, you would guess, things like credit reference data, more secure, more accurate.

No only does this betray a wholesale lack of understanding of basic data security principles - one keeps personal data separate and unlinked precisely to make that data more secure, but it seems the Home Secretary has forgotten about the existence of the Data Protection Act, which exists in a part precisely for the purpose of ensuring citizen’s rights to scrutinise and correct information held about them by third parties.

The Government has failed at every turn to make its case for the introduction of ID cards, relying instead on half truths and sophistry to gull the public into accepting this Bill. Yet even now it has a choice. It can walk away having suffered no more than a little bruised pride and a deflated ego.

Better that than create Blair’s own personal ‘Poll Tax’ our of its own blinkered myopia.

The Government needs to remember Santayana’s admonishment that ‘Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.’ and look back at the lesson’s of the Poll Tax and what happens when Government, out of arrogance and hubris, chooses of its own volition to ignore the will of the people.

Watched about five minutes of Question Time last night and then decided to read a few blogs instead for no better reason than the fact that Michael Winner gets right on my tits.

He’s not quite the worst ‘celebrity’ guest to appear on the show, that dubious honour goes to an appearance a while back by Patti Boulaye who managed to preface every answer she gave with ‘Well, as a Christian…’ - the production team must have forgotton to remind her that she was on a political discussion programme and not Songs of fucking Praise.

All of which made me think that is about time that QT’s producers starting thinking a little more innovatively about who to put in the ‘not a politician but may be interesting’ slot on the panel.

More often than not it’s the guest non-politician who turns out to be best - and sometimes only - reason that its worth tuning in, especially when, these days, the number of politicians capable of carrying the show to an interesting debate seems to be rapidly diminishing. There are still a few who are eminently watchable; Boris - ain’t that the height of celebrity when only your first name’s needed - Tony Benn, Ken Livingstone, and the few others who remain capable of exhibiting that they have a mind of their own, but otherwise most of what we get seems to be the same old official party line stuff which means that, for the most party you can predict what the majority of panelists are going to say as soon as he question’s asked.

In fact, there is far more quality political discussion and debate to found out here in the blogosphere than is ever seen on the vast majority of QT’s shows.

So, isn’t it time that we saw our first blogger sat in the ‘not a politician’ seat - and I mean a real bona fide blogger, not a politician, academic, writer or journalist who happens to have picked up on blogging, but one of us.

Let’s face it there’s plenty to choose from, all of whom would, I’m sure, give a damn good account of themselves - take any of the regular contributors to the Sharpener for starters, either of the Tim’s (Ireland and Worstall), and , when visting Northern Ireland, the good folks at Slugger O’Toole offer a choice of ten ‘possibles’ who could easily enliven the show. I could name quite a few more were I at home with my full rack of RRS feeds to go from and, what the hell, even I’d be game despite having a ‘look’ far more suited to radio.

Blogging is certainly showing signs that its starting to make inroads into the mainstream - not only do a number of the ‘qualities’ now track what’s going on out here but, increasingly, we’re seeing references to the work of a range of bloggers popping up in - so far - mainly op-ed pieces. And there’s been enough interest for the press to speculate as to when British blogging might generate its first ‘Rathergate’ style evisceration of a public figure - I think this unlikely due to the UK’s pernicious libel laws, but you never know - as if that will be the big breakthrough from British blogging.

Personally, I think we should set our sites on something a bit less ambitious - and risky - and a blogger as a panelist on Question Time would be just the kind of modest breakthough to announce our arrival in the mainstream as not so much a force but as a legitimate and valid arena for political discussion and debate.