26 January 2006 – Mark Ballard MSP (Green)
Mr Ballard concentrated on the more political aspects of the scheme, such as why they were being proposed at this time.
There had been simple ID cards during WW2 but these had been abolished in 1952 as being un-British in peacetime.
There had, however, been continual proposals to reintroduce them as a universal solution to solve a problem of the time, for example to deal with 1980s football hooliganism.
Moral panic
Now they were intended to combat illegal immigration, benefits fraud and identity theft. A prime reason had been an attempt to outflank the Conservatives on crime prior to the 2005 election.
The proposals were introduced in an atmosphere of moral panic, not because there was a special need.
Compulsion
In the summer of 2005 Labour had a majority of only 31. To gain this majority, the Home Secretary had been forced to concede that there would be no compulsion to show a card on demand.
The whole concept would not work if it were not compulsory.
Opposition
There had been much debate about costs. The government line was that costs should be confidential, which was a nonsense.
The Lords had voted this week that entering a personal record on National Identity Register (NIR) should be voluntary.
The Scottish Green Party had made a motion, gaining cross-party support except from Labour and Lib Dems, asking to what purpose the NIR would be put in Scotland.
Corporate motives
Labour party members were not particularly enthusiastic about ID cards. It was IT companies, especially EDS, who were the most active proponents.
Corporate Watch's "Corporate Identity" report on these companies
It was EDS that produced the disastrous Child Support Agency system.
Another company was pursuing iris recognition using technology which was not yet developed, on the assumption that it would be ready when it was required.
Recipe for disaster
The whole ID technology enterprise was comparable to the Scottish Parliament building project – it had become a matter of pride and prestige divorced from its intrinsic value.
The biometric systems being proposed were the most advanced in the world. The requirements kept changing. Both were a recipe for technological disaster.
Useless
Mr Ballard's forecast was that to get the scheme accepted there would have to be so many concessions that the resulting scheme would be useless.
Even for those who wanted a compulsory ID card, this would be the worst of all possible schemes.
"IT industry prepares for the worst over ID cards" by Mark Ballard
Discussion
There followed about 45 minutes of wide-ranging discussion. Points raised included:
- A comparison of entitlement cards and ID cards.
- The need to show cards gives government more control over citizens.
- Can we be sure future governments will be benign?
- Fingerprints and irises change over time.
- Concentration on costs is wrong; it should be on civil liberties.
- What happens when there are errors in the NIR?
- The Scottish Parliament can opt out of certain uses but Westminster can override if it deems fit.
- Most of the bill is concerned with the NIR rather than the ID card itself.
- It would not restrict terrorism as most terrorists (Muslim and IRA) have been UK residents.
- The recent DNA case shows lack of respect for privacy.
- The biometric data could be on the card itself, with no need for the NIR.
- Where is the clamour for an entitlement card?
- Many will refuse to register, as for the poll tax.
- The presumption of innocence is changed by the need to show a card.