SMT Online Editor's View: Play Your Cards Wrong

09 Jul 09

Not long after the ghostly and ghastly dust clouds created by the collapsed Twin Towers had begun to dissipate from New York’s skyline, (then) Home Secretary David Blunkett responded by waxing lyrical about Plastic (sorry, Police) Community Support Officers and the desperate need for compulsory ID cards in the UK.

The Great British Populace was fed the line that such a scheme would be a magnificent panacea for combating terrorism, fighting organised crime, preventing illegal immigration and putting a stop to identity fraud.

The national ID card would do everything bar make the tea, or at least that’s what Joe Public was led to believe.

A draft Bill duly saw the light of day three years later, and became the Law of the Land in 2006 in the shape of the ID Card Act. At the time, the basic aim was to roll-out the cards for Britons alongside new biometrics-based passports.

Once enough of us – something in the region of 80 per cent of all Brits, actually – had the cards, new laws would then be brought forward to make them compulsory.

Winding the clock forward to today, and with millions upon millions of pounds of the tax payers’ money already flushed down the drain, reality has finally dawned for the Government that the whole thing is – and always was, if Brown and Co are honest with themselves – a complete and utter waste of time and finance.

Embarrassing and significant about-turn

Only a few days ago, current Home Secretary Alan Johnson was forced into an embarrassing and significant climbdown.

The cards will now only be issued to Britons on a voluntary basis (although they’ll continue to be compulsory for all those foreign nationals wishing to remain resident here for the longer term).

No Britons will ever be forced to have one. It follows, then, that if no-one actually wants one this surely paves the way for scrapping the idea in its entirety?

What a great start to smooth-talker Al’s tenure in the hot(est) seat. In his first major policy statement, Johnson freely admitted that the Government had “exaggerated” the benefits any such card would have in fighting the terrorist threat. This Government not telling We The People the truth? Shock. Horror. Whatever next?

Now, the best riposte Johnson can offer to detractors is that the cards would assist youngsters to buy drinks in their local bars and clubs. Marvellous.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s hardly a good enough argument to continue frittering away an estimated £500 million every year from a non-cash rich Home Office budget in setting up the framework to deliver whatever sort of scheme the Government still has in mind to foist upon certain parties.

Leaving to one side the fact that any connection – however slight – with teenagers and alcohol is abhorrent given the binge drinking culture Labour has blindly nurtured, let’s not forget that this cost would rise far, far higher should many more clients in the public sector beyond the airport ‘guinea pigs’ (more of whom anon) have to invest in the fingerprint readers that would be needed.

A panacea to combat terrorism... or maybe not

The notion that any national ID card would thwart the extremists in our midst – and, more specifically, their continuing attempts to blow us all sky high – was firmly kicked into touch in mid-June, when retired legal specialist and highly respected former Judge Lord Steyn delivered the Lord Williams of Mostyn Memorial Lecture.

Not without foundation, his Lordship accused the Home Office of introducing this whole scheme by stealth, under a false premise and with the aid of clever conditioning such that public opinion would soften towards it.

“There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest these cards would protect us against terrorism,” urged Lord Steyn. “It’s nothing but an unjustified invasion of civil liberties.”

On that note, in a separate speech delivered at the recent Information Assurance for the Public Sector Conference (also held in central London), the impressively incisive shadow security minister Baroness Neville-Jones opined: “The individual is the rightful owner of personal information. The State is merely a possessor of that information, and should behave as its responsible custodian. We need to roll back the advance of Big Brother, and restore the fundamental rights of our citizens.”

Too damn true. Restoring privacy today must beget a clear statement on the part of those who have custody of our personal information.

A clear statement outlining their purpose in retaining this information. A statement emboldening their commitment to its proper management. In other words, we need a fundamental review to be conducted of any centralised Government databases.

To be honest, I don’t believe that many people objected to the ideas that lay behind the national ID card. After all, we each carry around umpteen cards in our wallets to prove our right to drive, withdraw cash and gain Nectar points at Sainsbury’s, so what difference does one more make?

In many ways the ID card is almost a Badge of Honour, a symbol of national pride (if such a thing is allowed in this country these days) and probity.

Where the problem lies is in what (potentially, at least) would or could happen to the data, and for what purposes might it be used? As I’ve said many times before in my Editor’s View, this lot’s track record of holding on to sensitive information isn’t the best, is it?

My opinions are endorsed by John Barker, the general manager at TSSI Systems. “The scheme may never have worked in the first place, as the correct security measures were not in place,” Barker told me.

“Biometrics alone are simply not enough. A strong verification technology needs to be applied. In order for an ID card scheme to work, the data has to be stored as an algorithmic encryption, which makes it impossible for even the most sophisticated of fraudsters to decipher.”

The storage of the information collected also needs to be carefully structured. The biometric data must be held separately from other personal data. This makes it much harder for anyone to obtain enough personal details to steal an identity or clone a card.

Leaving the system open on a voluntary basis is laughable. “Who in their right mind would voluntarily hand over biometric information to a scheme that is fundamentally flawed?” said Barker. I think we all know the answer to that question.

His Lordship speaks for the majority

Anyway, I digress. With a swift boot to the Home Office’s nether regions, Lord Steyn also added: “By and large, the commitment of the British people to European constitutional principles and ideals does not require us to adopt an ID card system. In my view, the scheme isn’t at all necessary. No further money ought to be spent on it. The idea should be abandoned altogether.” I suspect Lord Steyn speaks for the majority, don’t you?

The inaugural efforts at imposing compulsory ID cards on us Brits, you may recall, emerged in the shape of a pilot scheme involving airside operatives at UK airports serving Manchester and London. That scheme will now be voluntary.

A mandatory situation could have placed at risk the employment of those who refused to comply, while at the same time deterring new joiners. That’s what TUC general secretary Brendan Barber believes, anyway, and to an extent he has a point.

Of course, a scheme allowing Britons to buy one of the £30 cards is soon to be up-and-running in the Greater Manchester area. Only problem is that, to date, just 3,500 locals have expressed an interest in actually owning one.

Johnson – who insists he’s still an “instinctive supporter” of ID cards – has now suggested that a similar opportunity will be offered to residents right across the North West from early next year. Clutching at straws, anyone?

It was always going to be the case that a further vote in Parliament would have been necessary for any compulsory scheme to materialise. Any of you who have read the aforementioned ID Card Act will know this to be the case.

What’s still going to happen next year is that, when British nationals trade-in their expired Passports for an all-singing, all-dancing, biometrics-based ‘special’, their details will be automatically enrolled on the National Identity Register. You can only avoid being on the database if you decide travelling isn’t for you.

National Identity Register continues to grow

Back in April, U-Turn Blunkett signalled that such mandatory biometric passports could replace the ID card altogether. “Most people already have a passport,” he now suggests, “but they might want something more convenient to carry around with them. They may be able to have a piece of plastic for an extra cost.”

The fact of the matter is that, as the National Identity Register continues to grow, then the ID scheme remains intact. From next year, anyone requiring a new passport will have their fingerprints logged and these, along with other details, will be entered on the database.

The card then becomes irrelevant, as someone’s ID may be corroborated using a fingerprint reader linked to said database.

It follows, then, that the only way this could be considered a voluntary sign-up is if it were possible for individuals to opt-out of being listed on the Register/database when they renew their passport. The Home Secretary is – just this once – expressly clear that any opt-out will not be allowed to happen.

Within the next few weeks, in fact, secondary legislation will be laid before the House that makes it an offence – punishable by a not insubstantial £1,000 fine – for anyone to fail in notifying the Identity and Passport Service of any change in address subsequent to them being enrolled on the database.

Before the Tories begin laughing in their thousands – and earmark the billions saved by dint of them scrapping the national ID card scheme in favour of delivering more prison spaces should they come to power – they’ll need to think again.

The majority of the scheme – and the profligate spending associated with it – will still have to go ahead for reasons (ie the biometric passport link) already stated.

Dropping the ID cards themselves would save ‘only’ an estimated £1.1 billion. Contracts awarded in April mean that any later abandonment of the scheme would burden the tax payer with a further £40 million debt.

Cynics would say that Gordon Brown’s shambolic crew is deliberately making it as expensive as possible for any future Conservative or Liberal Democrat administration to scrap the ID cards.

Of course, they’ve also likely shifted Labour’s 2011 Tax Bombshell on to Conservative Central Office as well. They’re not stupid. Well, not for 10 per cent of the time.

I would say that, at a juncture when the public purse is under gargantuan pressure the like of which it has not seen for generations, it’s nothing short of outrageous for Labour ministers to employ a ‘poison pill’ strategy against their opponents.

Hopefully, the public will see through the latest in a long line of dirty tricks and do something about it at the ballot box (at a time to suit Gordon Brown, of course).

Little other than a partial retreat

Unwittingly or otherwise, Alan Johnson has signalled the death of Labour’s ID card folly. One of the fundamental design flaws is that the system has to be compulsory. If it isn’t, as is now the case, then how on earth can any public servant – be they a sworn police officer, immigration official or member of the welfare service – demand to see anyone’s card on the spot? They cannot.

The about-turn is yet further proof of an administration in total and utter disarray. The Home Secretary knows that millions have been wasted on this fanciful idea. Deep down, the smart money would suggest he’d rather scrap ID cards altogether, but Gordon will not let go of Son of Blunkett.

What we end up with, as always, is a half-way house. A fudge of the most absurd proportions. Ultimately, we’re now witnessing nothing other than a partial retreat.

Either way, the scheme is still expected to cost something in the region of £4.9 billion across the next decade. It’s little short of preposterous, particularly given the scenario being played out in The City just now.

The majority of that loot will be spent on the biometric passports. That’s OK in the grand scheme of things, but what we’re talking about now is an initiative so voluntary that only mandarins in the Home Office with one eye on climbing the greasy, sleazy pole of promotion will have such a card in their possession. What’s the point in it all?

The rich irony of the situation is that Blunkett, the original leader of the Pro-ID Card Lobby, is now vehemently opposed to the idea. At that point, it’s probably wise for us to begin calling the national ID card an abandoned orphan.

As the wise Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Chris Huhne astutely summarises: “Only the most profligate of Governments would lavish billions of pounds on this programme in the midst of the deepest recession, and at a time when tough choices surrounding public spending have to be made.”

Passports are no face-saver

The passport element is no real face-saver, either. Our passports were going to become biometric at some point in time anyway. Not even this mob could turn around and tell us all with a straight face that we have to pay for a new passport whether or not we need one.

Forthwith, the Government must stop haemorrhaging tax payers’ money at the peril of their privacy and scrap this scheme. Not just bits of it. All of it.

A few political ‘sacred cows’ will have to slide from Gordon Brown’s grasp if he’s to have any chance of reducing our burgeoning public debt mountain, and the national ID card scheme must be one of them.

This Government would do well to remember that the British State belongs to the British people. It is not the other way around, and what’s more it never will be (but if such a Dark Day should ever come to pass, I don’t mind turning the lights out when I’m the last to leave once I’ve made doubly sure all of you intelligent folk have exited in a safe and orderly manner).

Having denied our fine band of OAPs any chance of a decent life these days, not to say shunning them completely, the Government is still waffling on about offering the ID cards for free to all those aged over 75. I’ll bet that’ll win Labour the blue rinse vote. Not.

However Brown’s spin machine decides to play the national ID card, overly large ears, four tree trunk-like legs and a ski-slope snout still makes for the Elephant in the Room.

This is one White Elephant that, undoubtedly, would be every bit as costly to our privacy and racial equality as it would our wallets and purses. Put simply, it’s a busted flush. Time to move on, Gordon.

The (Parlous?) State of the Nation

Remaining with the national security theme for a moment, on Monday of this week Mark Whyte – whom many of you will know as the popular and innovative director of security consulting and explosion effects at TPS – tipped me the wink that the full report entitled The State of the Nation: Defending Critical Infrastructure has just been published by the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE).

I knew of the 16-page missive (which makes for very interesting reading, by the way) as it was previewed at the RUSI Critical National Infrastructure Conference back in May.

I also know of the importance of the backbone supporting this great nation of ours, and why it must be defended and protected to the hilt.

Our infrastructure – energy sources, transport networks and communication systems included – is vital. Arguably, it’s also now under a greater threat than at any time in history.

To its great credit, the ICE conducted a full-scale inquiry into the defence of the UK’s critical infrastructure.

In the course of those investigations, oral and written evidence was gathered from over 70 major infrastructure asset owners, operators, agencies, service providers and civil engineering consultants and contractors.

Evidence submitted allowed the Institution to produce an excellent, totally independent assessment of how effectively we’re ensuring the resilience of our infrastructure. Overall, it must be said that the findings couldn’t be described as pretty.

Work remains piecemeal, more must be done

Alan Stilwell of MerseyTravel (chairman of the ICE Steering Group and chief author of the report) states: “We should be under no illusions. There are dangerous weaknesses in our Critical National Infrastructure and utilities networks that must be addressed.

“Well-defended critical infrastructures are central to the security and stability of the nation. We either work now to fortify our networks or pay the economic, social and environmental price in the future.”

The main threats to our Critical National Infrastructure are, of course, systems failure, climatic change and acts of terrorism.

The Government has indeed taken some steps towards reducing the risks to infrastructure, for example by dint of its efforts to counter terrorism (CONTEST2) and the creation of a national body equipped to deal with natural hazards (aptly dubbed The Natural Hazards Team).

That said, work remains piecemeal. Put simply, we need to do more. The network must be treated as a whole, necessarily requiring an overview function that fully recognises a truism: that the functionality of one asset is wholly dependent on others.

Quite rightly, the ICE states that we must close the gap in our infrastructure defence system. How we do that in the real world is the $64,000 question.

First off, the Institution states we must establish a new, single point of authority for infrastructure resilience to co-ordinate the good work of the many and varied agencies responsible for defending our Critical National Infrastructure against all threats. More of this anon.

In addition, the newly-assembled Natural Hazards Team must be afforded the power to provide strong leadership to asset owners, and ensure that legislation is properly and rigidly enforced. I would suggest penalties must be added for demonstrable non-compliance.

The ICE also states that the Government ought to revisit the remit for sector Regulators such as Ofgem (electricity and gas) and Ofwat (sewerage), addressing asset resilience as well as consumer interests while at the same time empowering them to make absolutely certain asset owners build-in reserve capacity in readiness for any type of emergency scenario.

Last – but by no means least – the Government must ensure that, when working in unison, the new Planning Act 2008 and the Infrastructure Planning Commission effectively and efficiently reform the planning system for major infrastructures.

Single point of authority for infrastructure resilience

The recommendation that the Government set up a single point of authority is a sound one on so many levels. We can then achieve resilience by encouraging reserve capacity and connectivity, all the while actively supporting local authorities in implementing the necessary resilience guidelines.

A fundamental requirement is to ensure that there’s sufficient technical engineering expertise in Government to enable the stoic defence of critical infrastructures. Speaking of Government, all elected officials must liaise to beget an apolitical approach to resilience. In this instance, party colours have to be left at the door.

There’s a defined need to improve Government accounting such that critical infrastructure liabilities might be effectively managed. The cost of political failure has to be increased. Of that there is no doubt here. No grey area whatsoever.

Following on from that, we must improve co-operation and information sharing between national, regional and local authorities, and seek to enhance co-ordination with the emergency services.

Interestingly, just a few days after the report first saw light of day, Gordon Brown said he would now be looking to establish an “advisory body that will identify the country’s infrastructure needs for the next 50 years”. Far be it from me to say this is something of a coincidence when such a body hasn’t even been on the radar.

The plans are set out in a policy document entitled Building Britain’s Future – “With what, Gordon, because all the money’s gone, mate?” – which is already being touted as Labour’s General Election Manifesto (or at the very least a rough version of it).

Haven’t we seen all this before, though?

The document includes many reissued proposals announced in Chancellor Darling’s last figure massage (ie Budget), among them carbon emissions cuts and a new funding mechanism for four carbon capture and storage demonstration projects.

Appropriately enough, the new body will operate under the name of Infrastructure UK, and is intended to complement the establishment of the Infrastructure Planning Commission (which itself will centralise planning for what Brown refers to as “nationally significant” infrastructure projects).

The body’s development will be led by recently-appointed trade, investment and business minister Lord Davies of Abersoch, whose portfolio falls within the remit of the overarching Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Full details concerning Infrastructure UK will be announced – and a chairman appointed – in time for the pre-Budget report during November.

Those details are awaited with some eagerness, because the consequences of any failure to ‘get it right’ don’t bear thinking about. Remember the old adage: The terrorists only need to succeed once. The forces of security must succeed EVERY time.

Continuation of the rewards for failure

At the tail end of June, it was revealed that former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair was paid the ‘small’ sum of £580,000 during his final eight months in office.

On top of his pay-off, the 56-year-old Teflon Don stands to collect a very tidy pension pot next February of around £3.5 million.

For the non-mathematicians among you, that works out at a cool £160,000 a year. Not quite in the Ronaldo bracket, then, but it means there’ll not be any need for visits to Aldi or Lidl in the near future.

Let us all remember that Sir Ian Blair left the Met riven by divisive legal claims, internal disputes and general discontent. The air still hangs heavy in New Scotland Yard to this day.

In so many peoples’ eyes he did such a very bad job, and eventually had to be forced out of office by Boris Johnson. Whatever you think of him, the tousle-haired Mayor of London deserves a medal for the part he played in loosening the glue that bound Sir Ian to his post.

Of course it’s outrageous that this kind of money is being given almost as a reward for failure – notwithstanding the fact that Sir Ian did serve 30 years in London and the Thames Valley, so we cannot be 100 per cent uncharitable – but equally outrageous is the news this week that not one but many of our top cops are on ‘super perks’.

Take Sean Price, for example. Mr Price is the chief constable of Cleveland Police. According to Police Review’s latest survey, Price’s alleged basic salary sits at a pleasant £125,000 per annum.

On top of that, he’s paid a reported £50,000 ‘retention package’ and an ‘honorariam’ of £24,000. The latter is a bonus for cutting crime in the region by a recorded 17 per cent.

Since when have we paid chief officers extra for doing what they should be doing anyway as the main part of their job? This beggars belief, it really does.

Within Price’s overall salary of £200,000 per annum is, apparently, a £32,000 car allowance, £1,000 towards private medical care and – wait for it – a cool £4,000 each year towards private school fees for his kids.

Why should tax payers foot the bill for a copper to send his offspring to a better school when many of them are struggling just to keep a roof over their head? In my opinion that’s disgraceful.

It’s also a remuneration package with off-book payments that puts Price ahead of police chiefs governing much larger remits. How can that possibly be justified?

Thinking outside of the (cash) box

Then there’s Ian McPherson. The chief constable of Norfolk Police has allegedly been awarded a tidy bonus package in the region of £70,000 (including the payment of Stamp Duty so as to encourage him to leave his previous post in North Yorkshire). He now earns a paltry – in comparison to Price, anyway – £129,000 each year.

Stephen Bett, who proudly sits as chairman of the Norfolk Police Authority – genuinely believes these rewards are value for money for Joe Tax Payer. Apparently, they encourage chief officers who “think outside of the box”.

What? I’ve never heard such garbage in all my life. A genuine copper should be in it for the public good, not their own self-aggrandisement and bank balance. They are, after all, a servant of that public and paid for by that public.

If chief constables aren’t good enough to think outside of Bett’s imaginary box then they shouldn’t be in post in the first place.

The Police Review survey also highlights other incentives for senior officers under these private deals, among them home security – you’d think they’d know how to crack that nut for themselves, wouldn’t you? – satellite television and ‘lifestyle coaching’. The latter certainly did Sir Ian Blair the world of good. In his dreams.

ACPO president Sir Ken Jones is adamant that, if people feel chief constables’ pay scales need to change, then it should be a case of open book accounting. Of course it should.

On a disturbing level, these payments are actively locking individuals into certain forces. They’re akin to the golden handshake, promoting avarice but at the same time inhibiting movement and, therefore, force development. They’re also extremely distasteful to the average member of the public.

Have we really reached the stage where commitment to the chief constable role is defined by the size of the payslip rather than any deep desire to protect members of the general public from harm? That’s how it’s beginning to look for many of us.

7/7: The Miracle of Carriage 346

Late on Saturday night, I was flicking through the myriad channels on the TV when I stumbled upon an excellent but at the same time harrowing and extremely moving More4 documentary entitled 7/7: The Miracle of Carriage 346.

Commuters like myself will never, ever forget that day in 2005 when zealots descended on the Capital and determinedly attacked its creaking transport system with no regard for life. This film followed the passengers of one of the tube trains who happened to be in the same carriage as a suicide bomber.

Watching the programme, which recalled how the emergency services took almost an hour to reach the victims secreted in the deep Piccadilly Line tunnel, it was interesting – and liberating – to note how compassion and dogged courage swiftly replaced London commuters’ usual reserve and stand-offish behaviour.

Gill Hicks, who lost both of her legs, also resultantly lost three quarters of her blood. Her heart stopped beating twice, but “an inner voice” made her fight for life and return home to the man whom she was about to marry. What a brave, brave woman.

On Tuesday, relatives of the 52 victims of 7/7 gathered in Hyde Park where a £1 million monument – consisting of 52 stainless steel columns echoing the ‘steely determination of Londoners’ – was unveiled by His Royal Highness Prince Charles.

Host Sir Trevor McDonald slowly read out the name of each victim before telling their loved ones: “We will remember them all”. Indeed we will. Each year and forever.

The best way of honouring their memory is to permanently rid the streets of those who would do us harm. The time for allowing the guilty to hide behind the Human Rights Act and observing politically correct niceties for fear of offence is well and truly over.

Until next time.

Get the latest stories first with info4security's newsletters: Click to signup

Post and bookmark this story at the following sites:

What is this?

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit	Google	Newsvine