Liberal Democrat MP Mark Oaten has criticised the Home Office for advertising for a marketing manager for ID cards before the legislation to introduce them has even been presented to parliament. Even worse, the advertisement on the Home Office website makes it clear that the successful candidate ‘will take responsibility for all aspects of positioning and promoting ID cards and ID card services to its customers and stakeholders. During the passage of the Bill, this will include communications with ministers, MPs and others.’
First of all, it is by no means certain that the legislation, should it be introduced, would pass. There is widespread concern over the extent to which identity cards will undermine our traditional notions of the freedom of the individual from state control, and this concern is cross-party. Secondly, it is worrying that a ministry is hiring someone who is clearly going to be lobbying for a controversial bill, on which the Home Office is dead set, but about which a lot of other people have doubts. Is this an appropriate use of public money in a democratic system?
Governments are always keen on new legislation, because it gives the impression that they are doing something. Whether or not the legislation actually solves the problem it is intended to address is another matter. In this case, identity cards are being promoted as a measure to counter crime, international terrorism and illegal immigration.
The fact is, we already have good laws on the statute book to deal with these issues, but they are not enforced. The criminal justice system has been tilted so far in favour of the criminal that it seems he is the Home Office’s ‘customer’ (to quote from the website), rather than the law-abiding citizen. But this could easily be remedied, without passing any new laws. We just have to decide to enforce the ones we have. Terrorism and illegal immigration (which are linked) could also be dealt with by a firm and decisive policy to take back control of our borders.
It would be preferable to try these expedients first, before we decide to increase the powers of the state over us, knowing how these powers are likely to be abused.
Comments (2)
The recent commons vote for the introduction of Identity Cards as supported by Michael Howard and the Conservatives was another example of the pantomime of our Parliament.
The Bill on ID cards will introduce the compulsory taking of fingerprints and retinal scans for all new and replacement passports once the Bill becomes law. The start of this ID card regime in Britain is expected to start in 2006 and deal with five million people a year until after six years, and in or around 2011, that 80% of the population will have been issued with the new ID cards and then the law will be changed to make the carrying of them compulsory and then criminal offences be imposed upon the remaining 20% of the population, mainly poor and elderly, that have not signed away their liberty for a passport to Spain for a cheap holiday.
Yet even though the Conservatives have opposed the introduction of ID cards in public since the idea was first mentioned (POST “9-11”) they still voted for the bill when it went through Parliament on its way to the House of Lords in December 2004. This was just another demonstration of the corruption, moral cowardice and party political power games played by the Conservatives at the expense of the British public and our pathetic so called democracy.
Posted by Humphrey Gittens | January 5, 2005 1:57 PM
Posted on January 5, 2005 13:57
There are real concerns about ID cards, not least that they are unlikely to be effective in addressing the principal justification for introducing them.
There are real dangers in equating 'democracy' with the narrow interests of a small cabal around No. 10, especially when the conventional checks on executive power have been either compromised or totally dismantled.
There are also real dangers in glibly equating the interests of the country with those of the government of the day. Those dangers are greater and paradoxically less easy to spot when you have a culture of spin, disinformation and control in any public body, let alone the government itself.
Against this background, advertising for a spin doctor before Parliament has even properly considered the issue does very little to put a dismayed electorate at ease.
The allegedly deliberate policy
Posted by Anon V7 | October 21, 2004 3:29 PM
Posted on October 21, 2004 15:29