Nigel Sedgwick takes me to task on my comments. Rather that reply to them via the comments box, I believe that it is worth responding here and give those concerns a proper airing.
This is an enabling bill. That means in simple terms, that once enacted a future Home Secretary may make amendments. For example, should such a Home Secretary decide that the primary legislation require religion or ethnic origin to be included, they would draft an amendment and that would be it. Here we agree that this is potentially dangerous.
I believe Nigel is missing the point about those items I listed when he points out (correctly) that the primary legislation does not specifically mention such things as health, criminal records and details of earnings. There is a simple reason why that should be. It doesn’t need to. The National Identity Register will act as a gateway to other government databases. The government has always been clear about this and reiterated that intent in its press statement. A quick trawl of government databases will find for instance; Inland Revenue, National Criminal Records, National Health, and Driver and Vehicle Licensing. They have also made clear that interrogation of the NIR will be logged (schedule 1).
So, for example, you apply for a job and the prospective employer checks the NIR. This is logged. The link to the Inland Revenue would make a simple matter of joining the dots to gather earning details. It isn’t difficult and it doesn’t need to be in the primary legislation – it is the nature of the beast being proposed. Anyone with access will be able to routinely snoop in a joined up manner that is not currently possible.
To believe that these other databases will not become part of, or interrogated by, the NIR is staggeringly naive. The whole bill is an example of control freakery that is seeking a problem to solve, while solving nothing.
Incidentally, I am not paranoid. My mental health is fine. I am merely capable of recognising the lessons from history. Even very recent history. I used the term “no plans” very deliberately. We are, after all, discussing the same government that had “no plans” to increase national insurance contribution prior to the 2001 general election. Upon securing a second term, they promptly raised national insurance contributions. Deceit has become a trademark. To mistrust people who routinely lie is not paranoid, nor it is paranoid to point out that they routinely lie and that people should not believe them.
I agree that the research document may well be a low level piece of work – however, it gives a clear indication of the thinking. Once in place, the government and its agencies will be looking for uses and “problems” that it can solve. After all, they will have to justify the cost. If they are discussing it now, it will inevitably find its way into the system. During the run up to the previous bill’s progress through parliament, David Blunkett was openly courting the private sector.
On the matter of these things remaining in the audit trail and that the individual should be able to have them expunged… Er, well, you might trust the Home Office to do so, I prefer not to, as this is more likely to be the pragmatic outcome. That information will be just too useful to delete at the whim of the individual. Also, what assurances and guarantees will the individual have that it has been expunged? Far better for it never to go in in the first place.
If I am guilty of anything it is understatement rather than overstatement. This bill is wrong in its entirety not in part. But then, I’ve never said “the provision of a National Identity Scheme (NIdS) is an excellent approach.” That is because it is not an excellent approach. Sorry, couldn’t resist…
One final point that came out during yesterday evening. The cost has risen again – another indication of deceit on the part of the Home Office. Although one that most of us could see coming. However, given that this is a tax on our identity, to charge Value Added Tax is a bit rich. They are charging a tax on a tax.
—–