Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A ROW IS brewing over the public services card ahead of the resumption of the Dáil and Seanad next month.
Civil liberties campaigners have raised concerns about the card after confirmation that possession of one will soon be required in order to obtain a driving licence or a passport.
Data protection experts have complained that that the government is attempting to create an ID card system “by stealth”, and Fianna Fáil has called for a debate on the issue to take place in both houses of the Oireachtas.
The card is not new – it was originally introduced in 2012 – but its rollout is coming under renewed focus after a number of cases (see below) which saw people lose out on public services because they don’t have one.
In the UK, attempts to introduce ID cards rumbled on for nearly a decade – causing numerous headaches for prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown as they attempted to bring in various versions of the scheme in the face of fierce opposition.
From the inception of the plan to the eventual, limited introduction of the cards, the dispute played out over an eight year period from 2002.
The scheme was scrapped entirely with the election of David Cameron and Nick Clegg’s Conservative-Lib Dem government in 2010.
Here’s what happened…
Tony Blair’s Labour government had proposed the idea of national ID cards after 9/11 as a way of combatting terrorism.
The initial plan was shelved, but a new version was introduced by Home Secretary David Blunkett in 2002. It was now being described as an ‘entitlement’ card which would be used to combat social welfare fraud.
A public consultation was launched: despite the fact that almost two-thirds of the 7,000 submissions were against the idea, Blunkett said he was pressing ahead with the project.
Blunkett pressed for legislation to be included in the 2003 Queen’s Speech, which traditionally sets out the priorities of the UK government for the coming year, but Blair’s cabinet was split on the issue.
The Home Secretary insisted the cards would ensure “people don’t work if they are not entitled to work, they don’t draw on services which are free in this country, including health, unless they are entitled to”.
Plans to bring in a national ID system were eventually outlined in the Queen’s November speech – but the scheme was to be delayed until later in the decade so that biometric data could be included.
Blunkett resigned and was replaced by Charles Clarke in 2004, but the new Home Secretary insisted he would press ahead with the ID card plan: legislation continued to make its way through parliament.
Labour suffered several defeats on the legislation in the House of Lords in 2006. In one such vote, Tory and Liberal Democrat peers managed to strike down plans to link the card to passport applications – insisting the government was trying to bring in compulsory ID cards “by stealth”.
Lady Kennedy, a human rights lawyer and Labour party rebel, had argued that the measure amounted to introducing compulsory ID “by the back door”. The legislation would have required all passport applicants to enter their details on a national identity register.
Labour ministers had warned the peers they ought to follow parliamentary convention and green light the measure, as it had featured in the government’s election manifesto. Opponents, however, said that the manifesto had promised a voluntary scheme, whereas the one being proposed would have to be accepted by anyone applying for a passport.
By the end of the year Tony Blair was still insisting the identity card scheme should go ahead for reasons of “modernity”. At a press conference, he also stressed the personal benefit of having an ID card, saying it would do away with the need to produce other documents to prove your identity.
After a 2006 compromise that allowed the bill to pass through the Lords, the rollout began in 2008 as ID cards became compulsory for foreign nationals.
A trial plan to make the cards mandatory for pilots and airside staff at London City and Manchester airports was dropped the following year, after union opposition.
Alan Johnson, who had by then taken over as Home Secretary, conceded that the cards should not have been sold as the “panacea for tackling terrorism” and said that had been a factor in “messing up” the debate.
“People who worked airside were resenting the fact there was compulsion involved,” Johnson said – although he insisted the ID scheme was still very much alive.
As the BBC reported at the time, the government had always envisaged that the scheme would eventually be compulsory. It had always insisted, however, that the cards would not be made compulsory without MPs being allowed to vote on the issue – and it was never proposed that it would actually be mandatory to carry one at all times.
A year after they were rolled out for foreign nationals, the final design of the card was unveiled to the public in 2009 and they were offered at first to members of the public in Greater Manchester.
The cards, which were available from £30, would be launched nationwide in 2011 or 2012, the government announced. Home Secretary Alan Johnson helmed the regional launch in July 2009, saying:
“The introduction of ID cards today reaches another milestone, enabling the people of Manchester to prove and protect their identity in a quick, simple and secure way.
Given the growing problem of identity fraud and the inconvenience of having to carry passports, coupled with gas bills or six months worth of bank statements to prove identity, I believe the ID card will be welcomed as an important addition to the many plastic cards that most people already carry.
The opposition described it as a “colossal waste of money” and civil liberties campaigners said it was “as costly to our pockets as to our privacy”.
As the rollout continued, the scheme was extended across the North West and to 16- to 24-year-olds in London in 2010.
By May of that year there were around 15,000 cards in circulation.
The same month, David Cameron became Prime Minister following a general election and his Home Secretary Theresa May announced she was scrapping the cards. A separate but similar scheme for foreign nationals would continue.
The entire project was estimated to have cost £5 billion – although the London School of Economics estimated at the time that the true cost could be far higher.
The debate hasn’t entirely gone away, however.
At the beginning of last year Nicholas Soames, a Tory MP, asked then-Immigration Minister James Brokenshire whether he would consider ID cards as a way of combatting the growing terror threat in Europe.
The idea was dismissed by Brokenshire, who responded:
There are steps that we are taking through various measures to enhance the security of this country but our judgment remains that ID cards is not the right way forward.
This summer, it was announced that EU citizens living in the UK after Brexit would need to apply for a new residence document to prove their right to stay in the country.
Again the familiar ‘by stealth’ argument raised its head – as opponents accused the government of trying to bring in ID cards “by the back door”.
“It is not an ID card,” Brexit Secretary David Davis insisted in the House of Commons.
We are talking about documentation to prove that people have the right to a job and the right to residence, but they will not have to carry that around all the time. It is not an ID card; it is rather like your birth certificate. It’s not an ID card!
Here at home, both main opposition parties have called for a debate on the issue of public services cards.
Sinn Féin TD Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire said this week that there were “very considerable and legitimate concerns regarding privacy and sharing of sensitive data”. Fianna Fáil’s Seanad spokesperson for Social Protection Catherine Ardagh said it was essential both houses of the Oireachtas had an opportunity to debate the matter.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
If Tokyo shot down a drone, which is basically a peice of machinery, I cant see how it could be deemed an act of war, especially when no citizen of China was harmed in any way. Its like if I left my ride on lawn mower out side and my neighbour blew it up, I’d say ah Fred, for fu*ks sake, what are you like. But if Fred tried to blow up my mower while I was on it, then I’d jump fence armed with the rose pruner and turn baritone Fred into a soprano.
Think you need to move house mate, that Fred chap sounds a right bollix.
Ireland should start developing drones through our technology colleges. We’ve got great aeronautical and computer expertise. We could develop valuable intellectual property for export.
I’d rather we didn’t get involved in an industry that espouses extra-judicial killings.
It’s unlikely, in China’s case anyway, that their plan is to use these things for weather, mapping etc.
They are made to kill at a distance, asymmetrical warfare at its most obvious. We don’t need to get involved. It’s dirty. Just because we CAN do something, doesn’t mean we should.
We don’t need to use our colleges to develop drone technology. That’s what we have politics for. Strap wings on ‘em and point them straight up…
No wonder this country will never get anyplace with those sort of attitudes.
Drones are used in certain places to deliver goods to remote areas inaccessible by land. Others are used for research purposes or to aid in search and rescue operations. A drone is not exclusively a weapon of war.
By the start of 2014 ireland will have a debt of approximately 205billion. If you want a future for your kids, we should explore every possible avenue that will excell our growth. If our skill set is building drones, then lets builld them and create thousands of high paid jobs for graduates. With a 205billion debts, its very simple, beggers cant be choosers!
Drone, drone, drone, drone, it’s all so depressing.
On a brighter note it’s Friday and accoring to statistics lots of people are having sex right now.
I’m done!
Might do it again later.
Your hand doesn’t count Jim
I feel safer already.
Excellent drone work.
Like most chinese made things the batteries will wear out after a few hours and the thing will have fallen apart within a month.
God be with the days when all you had to do was call the A team….
Drone on truck in main picture is wrong one, wings are straight… not delta shaped as the article (or indeed the BBC article) points out
It’s 2013, the wings orientation shouldn’t an issue.
What’s even more amusing about the picture is the truck in camouflage green with the very discreet white-wall tyres. Sure, nobody would notice those out in the countryside…..
They are parade trucks,not actual combat vechicles.
The big question of course is where will this end ? . So soon we can see China taking out dissidents in London or New York ? Iran taking out dissidents in Istanbul ? Or for example in former times The British Government liquidating suspects in Dublin or Dundalk ? With the risk of (Some) collateral damage ? Under which international law will drone attacks operate ?
Padric. You might want to look closer to home. Tibetan dissidents in Napal.
I hardly think the Chinese will be sending columns of flying drones over the skies of London or New York to bomb dissidents especially when a poisoned umbrella or concrete shoes will do the trick just as easily. It’s worked quite well for the Russians
@ Mick : I exaggerate a little about London and New York of course, but there must be a provision for this “relatively new phenomenon” written into the Geneva Convention, or some such international law which forbids the use of drone strikes across national borders aimed at extra-judicial killings. Otherwise this will get completely out of hand.
In Cantonese it’s called Hu Flung Dung.
Does the drone pictured mounted on the truck seem a bit small?
Both the Predator & Reaper drones seem much larger.
I wonder what ordnance it could carry & its range doing so?
I doubt it could reach Japan…… probably scares the sh*t out of Taiwan though.
Drones wouldn’t scare any modern force really. They’re big, slow targets with practically no ability for evasive manoeuvres past a few basic programmed moves and very little in the way of countermeasures. Iran also showed that anyone with even a basic understanding of the technology can essentially shut down a drone.
They’re useful for observing an area with absolutely no air defences and can be of limited combat value. Anything more and you really need to call in a manned, supersonic jet with much more ordnance and countermeasures. Something which almost everyone has at this stage.
I’m a bit skeptical about Iran’s ability to bring down that drone. It’s speculated that it could have been a modern Trojan horse, used to deliver targeted malware. We know the US have targeted Iran with malware before; Stuxnet.
Jason is right Barry.
Predators for example are propellor driven, and travel around 400mph at best.
A 1970s jet or any half decent SAM site can pick them off easily enough.
The MiG fighters employed by Iran are more than a match for any drone currently in service.
You must not know of the incident in question, Ricky. Iran claimed they hacked the drone while in flight and commanded it to land. It was undamaged and they said they plan to reverse engineer it. They did not shoot it down.
I heard of the incident,….. i assumed it was just downed by an iranian missile.
China is a bit behind these other boys “Senior analyst Gen. McInerney warns that US is in comparable danger to pre-WWII period, specifically from Russian and Iranian hegemonies.”
Next they be thinking for themselves
Our experts busies in inventing drones an other war high tech technology but how about this Doomsday Debate: Asteroid Threat Could Divide Society. If our God permit this such as the 1979 vn that have an absolute magnitude of 13.2 and the rolling of the moon will come up all the things that we have in this planet will erases that we may pull back in the old days that uses horse and sword that only only came face to face during war. And no civilian casualties.
have your say