By Andy McCue, 19 October 2005 12:45
NEWS Rebel Labour MPs failed to block the passage of the controversial ID Cards bill despite slashing Prime Minister Tony Blair's already slender majority by more than half in Tuesday's House of Commons vote.
A three-line party whip ensured the government's 66-seat majority was never under serious threat but the bill still only squeezed through by 25 votes and now moves to the House of Lords where it faces closer scrutiny and tougher opposition.
During the debate leading up to the vote, the government was again criticised over the cost and supposed benefits of ID cards and for curtailing the amount of time allocated for MPs to discuss the bill.
Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael said: "The claims that ministers make are overblown. They move glibly from one issue to another as each justification is demolished and ultimately we know that the bill will not work."
Conservative MP Edward Garnier said MPs should be "ashamed" of a bill that amounts to little more than a "denial of democracy".
But Home Secretary Charles Clarke said: "It will provide an effective mechanism to tackle crime, to reduce identity fraud and to improve legitimate access to services. I believe that it will not remove civil liberties but will give an individual greater control over his identity."
He also revealed that since the previous ID cards vote, the project has passed another Office of Government Commerce review on business justification and has been given the green light to move to the next phase.
But several amendments to the bill proposed by rebel Labour MPs and opposition parties - including allowing people to opt out of having their details included on the national identity register and scrapping any fee for the ID card - were also defeated by the government.
If the bill is rejected by the Lords then Blair would be forced to invoke the Parliament Act to get ID cards on the statute book. It is unusual, however, for the Lords to vote down any bill included as an election manifesto pledge by the government and it is more likely that a compromise would be agreed through further concessions.
Microsoft joined critics of the scheme yesterday slamming the technology plans as flawed and saying that a central national identity database will massively increase the risk of fraud and ID theft.
Comments
There are 3 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Why should anyone listen to Microsoft when it comes to security?
This article is hoplessly biased. Poor journalism in my opinion.
2. Simon
Anonymous asks : "Why should anyone listen to Microsoft when it comes to security?"
Well, given their track record, if Microsoft criticise something as being insecure then that one heck of a statement !
But more seriously, the fact that this bill passed is seriously bad news. It does not matter a bit what the current rules or promises are, we can be 100% certain that once the base legislation is in place then those with designs on our control will steadily expand it's influence.
It's already clear that they expect serious opposition. They've effectively removed an individuals right to challenge them in court by making penalties for non-compliance a civil matter. And they've more or less admitted that they intend making it compulsory by default - as in it will just be too difficult to live without one.
So here we have a compulsory ID card, linked to an insecure database that WILL evenutally be cracked and leak millions of peoples identities out, and costing an unknown (but not inconsiderable) amount - and anyone that refuses to comply will suffer a financial penalty with no effective route to challenge it.
It might take a while, but this could be Tony's 'poll tax' - if he's still around by the time reality hits the populace. More likely he'll be long gone and there will be one heck of a round of passing the buck !
3. Howard
OK, Tony and his cronies believe this ID card shenanigans is a great idea and we'll all thank him for it - apart from crooks, fraudsters and innocent people unfortunate enough to be misidentified as either of the above.
As they appear to be pushing this bill through, why don't we have a second bill that makes them (and they're supporters) personally responsible if it turns out that the idea is flawed, it runs over budget, it puts innocent people behind bars / denies them hospital treatment etc etc.
This accountability would remain in place until their final breath. Lets see how keen they are to push it through on that basis.