ID Card Next Steps
The Identity Cards Bill returns to the Commons for what are known as the “remaining stages” on Thursday 10th February. This is supposed to be an occasion for serious Parliamentary scrutiny.
The next stage to be done is the “Report Stage”. This is a report back from the Standing Committee to the whole House of Commons on what they thought of the Bill in detail. We expect the Government will allow 3 to 4 hours for this which means that most MPs will have no real chance to consider the Bill properly even though they have grave concerns about it.
This will be followed by the “Third Reading”. This is supposed to be a serious reconsideration of the Bill once it has been through all the detailed procedures. The Government will probably allocate one hour for this of which 15 minutes or 30 minutes may be taken up by votes from the preceding Report Stage.
This all means that having had only two weeks in Standing Committee to consider this major piece of legislation, the House of Commons will devote perhaps just another four and a half hours to completing its (in)consideration. Shameful.
I have tabled a small number of serious amendments for consideration at Report Stage, each of which merits an hour or two’s debate. We will probably not even look at most of these. So I will paste them up here to show we tried.
In frustration,
Richard
Identity Cards Bill Liberal Democrat Report Stage Amendments
Group 1 Limit Historic Address Records
Clause 1, page 2, line 10 delete ‘previously’ and insert after ‘resided’, ‘during the previous three years’
Clause 1, page 2, line 12, after ‘resident’ insert ‘during the previous three years’.
There was debate in Standing Committee about the amount of previous residence information that would be held in the National Identity Register. The Minister stated that this might not be an entire address history but offered no clear information about what is intended.
This was picked up as an important point by members of the Standing Committee. It has also been picked up by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in their Fifth Report which was not available at the time of the Standing Committee, paras 14 and 15.
The amendments aim to create certainty in this important area of privacy by ensuring that there is a defined statutory limit to the amount of previous address data that can be held. This is much more satisfactory than relying on the fact that data must be deemed to be ‘necessary’ for the statutory purposes as these are so widely drawn and include ‘the prevention and detection of crime’ which could presumably provide statutory cover for holding whole life records.
Group 2 Allow Voluntary Registration During Designated Document Phase
Clause 5, page 4, line 43, at end delete ‘.’ and insert ‘; (d) state that the individual does not consent to be included in the Register on the basis of this application’
Clause 10, page 9, line 5, after ‘card’ insert ‘and about whom there is an entry on the Register’
The requirement to compulsorily register when applying for a ‘designated document’ is potentially discriminatory. This has been picked up by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in their Fifth Report paras 18-21. The criterion for early entry onto the register is the arbitrary one of whether or not an individual has applied for a passport.
The Minister stated in Standing Committee that he wished to establish in this Bill that this was a compulsory ID Card scheme. This compulsion will have to be exercised by means of the Clause 6 powers at some point irrespective of the nature of the designated documents procedures.
The amendments seek to allow an individual to decline to enter the ID Cards scheme when applying for a designated document. This would remove the discriminatory element. A passport applicant could still request registration on a purely voluntary basis. Those who decline will do so in the full knowledge that they may later be required to register under Clause 6 compulsion and that this may cost them more.
The Government could and should test the extent to which people would exercise the option not to register. If it is a small number it would not dramatically change their plans but would afford much more clarity between the voluntary and compulsory phases of the scheme.
Group 3 Restriction on Nature and Scope of Orders for Use Without Consent
Clause 22, page 19, line 43, after ‘information’, insert ‘not falling within paragraph 9 of Schedule 1′
Clause 22, page 20, line 1, after ‘person’, insert ‘in the United Kingdom’
It became apparent in Standing Commitee that orders under Clause 22 could be used to enable bodies outside the UK to be given access to entries on the National Identity Register without an individual’s consent. This is an area of very serious potential concern which should not be a matter for a statutory instrument whether by affirmative or negative procedure.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed concern about the disclosure of audit data, Schedule 1 Para 9, under Clause 22 in para 42 of their report. This point was also raised in Standing committee without there being any satisfactory conclusion.
Group 4 Include Costs and Value for Money in National Identity Commissioner Scrutiny
Clause 24, page 21, line 16, at end, delete ‘.’ and insert
‘;
(e) the costs incurred by individuals as a result of their duties under this Act or the subordinate legislation made under it; and
(f) the extent to which ID cards represent value for money.’
There has been a great deal of debate both in Standing Committee and elsewhere about whether the scheme will be cost-effective. Ministers have accepted that this is a complex project on a scale that has not been attempted elsewhere. They have agreed that there are a number of uncertainties that mean that a definitive view on costs cannot yet be given. There are also questions about possible exclusions from the scheme, e.g. on age grounds, that may affect the way in which the costs fall on other people.
As the Government is setting up an independent Commissioner to oversee the scheme they would be well placed to look into this aspect of its operation. There will of course be the normal National Audit Office enquiries but Parliament could also benefit from a value for money review being included in every annual report to Parliament by the Commissioner. This will ensure that if there are problems with escalating costs that these are reported to Parliament in good time and on a regular basis.
This sort of behaviour by governments — allocating insufficient time to scrutinise legislation properly — would soon be curtailed if MPs were willing to defeat the legislation that’s treated this way. It’s a sad state of affairs that the House of Commons often lets government legislation through without getting a chance to scrutinise it. It is then left to the Lords to do what they can with the resulting mess.
A common complaint in British politics is that the executive has too much control over the Commons. To a high degree it only has this control because MPs let it take control. Of course primary responsibility for this, at the moment, lies with the Labour MPs on the government benches (there are a few notable exceptions).
One further comment. I do appreciate the good work you’ve been doing on this issue and the issues of software patents, DRM and copyright.
I welcome the proposal to opt out of the registration during applications for designated documents, if entered I shall be utilising this facility. Having said that, I am still very concerned that the act of proposing amendments implies agreement with the principle. The principle of creating a “citizen register” with the capability of becoming a common-key hub of almost-every-single peice of data on that person is alarming to anyone who can grasp the concept and likely government utilisation (remembering as we must how the governement is a mighty foe to an individual caught in its beauracratic net).
With a virtual database of such scope the likely outcomes will be givernment dreaming up complex queries to profile obscure behavior indicating transgressions in obscure technical offences. Are we ready to have the facility to enforce every minor criminal and civil infraction? Or shall we store them as a ‘history’ of ‘probable anti social behavior’ to be investigated later, perhaps when something ‘actionable’ occurs? It certainly fits nicely with allowing ‘proir offences’ in court and without a jury at that. Mundane undetectable behaviors like failing to update your address with DVLC, or consistently opting out of the more onerous clauses in future government schemes (what of the motor trader who consistently opts out of the miliage declaration on reg-documents?). We better be sure that all our current laws are realistic because this will make them all detectable. Will someone who uses drugs (either from his doctor or illegal recreational drugs he declared to his doctor once, or from blood tests for unrelated heathcare) occasionally be pulled over in his car by local police who have been given a print out of target cars where offences are marginally more likely be be taking place? with number plate recognition this becomes automated and practical. These schemes will flourish in the most unexpected areas.
Apart from profiling people for crime detection its reasonable to expect that this will be used to tailor-make the right propaganda for any issue the government sees fit. Government can know in advance the precise demographic affected by any legislation it can dream up. We can expect new taxes which hit minorities with easily-demonised wider personal profiles. Charging people fines for failing to report something reportable about themselves which attracts a new levy. It is all quite likely. Why not charge an additional levy on people who use hospital/casualty at peak times (saturday night) when a certain “binge-level” of alcohol shows up in their blood? If any are also teachers, test for alcohol during their workday?.
Anyway, this is a rant. probably a paranoid one. put me into that pigeon-hole and relax, governments never become oppressive right?
Government doesnt deserve this power over people, it is OUR servant. please remember that. ID cards make me the one who must justify myself, I have yet to hear government justify itself, except via the imagined and real threats it creates for itself.
If commercial agencies get hold of this data then we really are in even more trouble.
In case there is any doubt I will be voting against the ID Cards Bill as a whole as I do not accept its basic premises. The tabling of these amendments does not in any way indicate support for the Bill. What it does do is ask the Government to reconsider some specific aspects of it given the likelihood that they will eventually get their way. It is in the nature of Parliamentary procedure that you are sometimes left trying to “improve” legislation like this that you do not anyway support.
It’s frankly shameful that the Michael Howard is supporting this bill. Good on you for supporting individual liberties.