It’s Wednesday, so how about an exercise in reading the political runes? Given the recent pronouncements by leading Government politicians, what do you think is going to happen to the ID Card scheme and its related database, the National Identity Register (NIR)? Is the ID Card scheme on the back burner (Lord Mandleson) or is it a necessary frontline service that needs protecting from the cuts (Mr Brown)?
Clearly, the NIR is not dead because the ID Card Scheme Commissioner has just been appointed (last Monday). Put aside the fact that the Commissioner is an ex-civil service mandarin with limited statutory powers or that he is merely another example of a regulator who protects the public and reports to a Home Secretary (who is responsible for all the key public bodies that will be allowed to use the NIR to interfere with private and family life). I think it is inconceivable that Government would make such an appointment if the ID Card scheme were dying.
Nor do I think the ID Card scheme is proceeding with full steam ahead because the purpose underpinning the NIR changes as often as does the Home Secretary. Confucius would no doubt have said something like “it is difficult to set out on a long journey when the direction of travel and the final destination are both unknown quantities”, and such a Confucian construction describes the range of official purposes associated with the ID Card scheme.
First the scheme was to protect us from terrorism or illegal immigration or to reduce crime. Next the scheme was to help identify which public service we are entitled to, which later morphed into making our daily life much easier and convenient. Indeed the Home Office is so enamoured with the latter objectives that it has positioned the NIR as the centre-piece of identity management requirements of “Transformational Government” arguing that NIR database is badly needed to deliver joined up public services electronically.
However, if this were to happen, the NIR’s audit trail would record any use of public and private services that required an ID check (e.g. opening a bank account, hiring a car, registration at a GP surgery), and allow these details to be disclosed to the law enforcement authorities. In addition, we could be fined if we failed to register our home address or keep that address up to date or failed provide all ten fingerprints (all of which will be shared with the police and others). Oh. I forgot – don’t worry about privacy you ninnies – all 60 million of us will be protected by the ID Card Commissioner.
In fact, I think putting the ID Card scheme on the “back burner” will suit Labour perfectly as it gives time to decide what to do. If the issue is booted into touch, Labour can say it is “listening” and there will be no need to deal with awkward questions during next year’s General Election campaign. Indeed, the ID Card scheme could even be sold to the public as a “saving” by resurrecting the ID Card idea of the 1990s, where the ID Card serves as joint passport and driving licence (thus getting rid of the need to have the DVLA).
So what is the answer to the question I originally posed: is it (a) backburner or (b) necessary and frontline. The answer is of course “both”: the ID Card scheme is being placed on the backburner so that someone in the Party can come up with ideas as to why the scheme is necessary.
Comments