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.