Letter from Westminster
April 3, 2006 1:43 PM
By Stephen Williams MP in Clifton Chronicle
By Stephen Williams MP in Clifton Chronicle
In 1950 a small act of civil disobedience in north London led to a fundamental change in the law. A young man named Clarence Willcock failed to present his identity card when required to do so by a policeman. A court case followed and Willcock, although guilty of an offence, was discharged by the Appeal Court judges. But Churchill's government decided that in peacetime identity cards were not needed and they were scrapped in 1952.
Mr Willcock was a member of the Liberal Party! I'm pleased to report that half a century on his political successors were the last to defend us in Parliament against the imposition of a new national identity card scheme.
I've had a nasty bout of illness in the last few weeks. Having chicken pox in your late thirties is not a pleasant experience and the medical advice was to have a complete rest. But I was determined to register my vote in the House of Commons against the Labour government's latest intrusion into our civil liberties.
The Identity Cards Bill has been the subject of 'ping-pong' between the Commons and the Lords for several weeks. In the end the Conservative and non-aligned 'cross bench' peers decided enough was enough and agreed a compromise with the government. This compromise means that from 2008 everyone who applies for a new passport will have to supply the government with the details required for entry on the new national database. But we won't have to get an ID card at the same time until 2010. In other words the government have got their way and David Davies, the Tory Shadow Home Secretary appeared to be somewhat embarrassed at voting with Labour.
The Conservatives have capitulated in return for a tiny bit of face saving. Now do you remember that nice Mr Cameron saying he was a 'Liberal-Conservative'? The about turn on ID cards is the most brazen example yet of Cameron flip-flopping.
People often say about ID cards, "what is there to be afraid of?" and superficially this remark may be compelling. I agree that there would be some utility in a card. The most obvious advantage would be to retailers and publicans trying to assess whether they have supplied alcohol or cigarettes to someone of legal age. But the government claims all sorts of other magical powers for the cards. They will apparently help stop terrorism, benefit fraud and other serious crimes. I don't believe this.
ID cards haven't stopped terrorists in other countries. False reporting of income, rather than identity theft is the main source of benefit fraud. Extra police would combat serious crime more effectively. Setting up an ID scheme from scratch will cost the country billions. This money would be better spent on more police and a beefed up security service. But the biggest objection to the scheme is the huge database that lies behind it. In two years we will be required to take a trip to the nearest passport office to have our picture taken, our fingerprints and irises recorded. This may be good news for the shops in Newport but an inconvenience to the rest of us. We will also have to supply lots of other personal data and inform the authorities of any changes. The government says that this information will be limited and the access to it will be restricted. Do you believe them?
I predict that the ID card and National Identity Database will be a costly failure. While most of us will obey the law, the individuals at the margin who the government says are the target of the scheme will elude the scheme for many years. Some civil disobedience and protest is likely. ID Cards may yet prove to be Labour's poll tax.
What would you like to do next?
-
Subscribe for updates
Follow the party's activity on...
- Twitter:
- Liberal Democrats
- Facebook:
- Liberal Democrats
- YouTube:
- Liberal Democrats