Why Hell has Frozen Over (a Comedy in Three Parts)
I've just experienced the most peculiar thing - I actually found myself agreeing with a statement made by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, on BBC Radio 4's 'Any Questions'.
This is surprising enough, since in my opinion he has overseen the dismantling of some of the pillars of democracy in the UK. What worries me more, is that his statement about the National Identity scheme sounded reasonable. The BBC quotes him as follows:
"The question is should you require - and I think ultimately, unless there is compulsion, you won't get the benefits of an ID card system - is it right to compel those that don't have a passport also to get an ID card?
"I think it is, I think it will become inevitable that you need reliable means of identification, both to stop people stealing your identity, and also making it much, much easier for you to deal with the state.
"You won't every time you want to change something have to fill in a long form, life will just become much easier."
Now, if we go back to basic principles, I think he's right. I've long worried that any National ID scheme is essentially useless unless it is compulsory; otherwise what's the point? After all, without compulsion we have a scenario of the state interacting with the citizen as follows:
---
[Scene One: a pea-souper in Old London Town. A British Bobby proceeds out of the mist to encounter a swarthy looking character in a stripy top and mask, with a bag marked 'Swag' on his shoulder]
[Bobby] "'Ello, 'ello, 'ello, what's all this then? You look like a wrong 'un sir, and no mistake. Would you care to show me your ID card please?"
[Wrong 'un] "Leave it aht officer, I ain't got none."
[Bobby] "Oh, very well sir. Just you make sure you drop in at your local station some time in the next week with your card, there's a good gentleman. On your way, and goood day to you."
---
Not a very compelling argument for claiming that a National ID Card would support national security, unless we make it compulsory. But is that compulsion within the government's powers?
The big hole in Lord Falconer's argument is that without some pretty intensive policy laundering in Brussels, the government will (quite rightly) never achieve compulsion: EU visitors may enter the UK on a passport for up to 3 months, and the government has no powers to force a citizen to accept a particular document. Take this example:
---
[Scene Two: that same pea-souper in Old London Town. The same British Bobby proceeds out of the mist to encounter a gentleman with a large macintosh coat, a beret, an impressively large moustache and an inflamatory Hungarian phrasebook]
[Bobby] "'Ello, 'ello, 'ello, what's all this then? You look like a wrong 'un sir, and no mistake. Would you care to show me your ID card please?"
[Foreign gentleman, reading from phrasebook] "I will not buy this record, it is scratched."
[Bobby] "Now, now sir, there's no need for that."
[Foreign gentleman, still with phrasebook] "My hovercraft is full of eels."
[Bobby] "Would you 'appen to be a foreign gentleman, sir?"
[Foreign gentleman] "Do you want to come back to my place, bouncy, bouncy?"
[Bobby] "Why don't you be on your way sir, clearly you aren't one of 'Er 'Majesty's citizens, and don't 'ave an ID card."
[Foreign gentleman] "Take me, take me I can contain myself no longer!" (etc etc)
[Bobby] "That does it, you're nicked!"
---
So, it looks like we're pretty stuffed on the compulsion front.
Furthermore, compulsion is still not sufficient to render the scheme workable for commerce - we also need the government to underwrite or indemnify a cash value for the card; in other words, to assign a value against which businesses will be compensated if a card is proven to be forged, stolen or in some way undermined. After all, Visa and MasterCard do this for their merchants, and the government is always keen to compare the scheme to Chip and PIN.
So, maybe we should take a look at how business and the citizen might interact in a world of ID Cards without some form of guarantee underwritten by the government:
---
[The scene: a high street bank. Happy customers stand in an orderly queue awaiting the attention of the single cashier on duty. A customer arrives at the front of the queue]
[Customer] "Excuse me, miss."
[Cashier] "Eh?"
[Customer] "I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to open a bank account."
[Cashier] "Of course you may, sir. Please could I see a form of identification?"
[Customer] "I 'ave 'ere a National Identification Card."
[Cashier] "Ah, I'm sorry sir, but we'll require some additional form of identification. Do you have a gas bill or credit card statement?"
[Customer] "But they took my bleedin' fingerprints and everything! Are you tellin' me, my good man, that 'avin' paid 90 of 'Er Majesty's Pounds for this, I can't use it to prove 'oo I am?"
[Cashier] "That would be correct sir. Do you have any other form of identity?"
[Customer] "I 'ave my birth certificate, driving licence, 25-yard swimming badge, boy scout's merit badges for tying knots in my woggle and tying my woggle in knots, an unmentionable DNA sample and my first-born son and heir."
[Cashier] "That would do nicely sir."
---
So, if business is to accept the ID Card as valid proof of identity, then it has to be acceptable without any further proof; after all, the Card can be used to obtain a driving license, benefits payments etc, so it becomes the de facto 'root' identity for all other identifiers.
Moreover, the government will have to force this compulsion not just on citizens, but on business too: the scheme will become a laughing stock if banks refuse to accept it as valid proof of identity from day one.
If the government were to guarantee the card up to, say, £2,500, then retailers and banks would know to what extent they could trust it. That same guarantee has to be offered to citizens in case (dare I say it?) their identities are stolen. After all, the Home Secretary has promised 100% security from the scheme, so what's the problem with putting a cash value to that security, when the government will never have to pay out? (Answers on a postcard please)
So, in summary after a certain amount of ranting: I agree with Lord Falconer that if you're going to have a National ID Card, then it has to be compulsory. I agree that the interaction between citizen and state might be simplified by an ID Card. But unless we introduce universal compulsion (something that is beyond the powers of the government) and couple that with an indemnity scheme, it's never going to fulfill its objectives.
I'm still stunned that I agree (at least in part) with the Lord Chancellor. To paraphrase the late, great and much missed Bill Hicks - "Wow, me and Lord Falconer, we're like that! Who would have thunk it?"
(With apologies to Monty Python)
11:32:41 AM 
|
