Civil Liberties
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1017, in the name of Margaret Smith, on civil liberties.
In bringing forward the debate, the Liberal Democrats seek to highlight our concern at the erosion of the civil liberties of our citizens. That concern is shared by many of our people, and for good reason. The loss by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs of computer disks containing the child benefit records, personal details and bank account particulars of 25 million people has appalled the general public and awakened many to the sensitive data that the Government holds on them and its disrespect for the privacy of individuals.
The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, has said:
"Any aggregate system of collecting information must be proofed against criminals, proofed against idiots, proofed against those who do not follow the ordinary rules of procedure."
Given what we now know, Government systems seem to fall short on all three counts.
At a meeting of the Home Affairs Select Committee yesterday, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith faced criticism from all sides over the United Kingdom Government's plans to extend the length of time that suspects can be held without charge from 28 to 42 days. No evidence has been brought forward to support extending the period, which is already far longer than that in any comparable democracy.
In the week in which the fire brigade heroes of the Glasgow airport attack are honoured and the Scottish Government rightly gives funds to Strathclyde Police to cover the policing costs of that attack, we acknowledge that the threat of terrorism is real and that it demands action.
We propose the removal of the bar on the use of phone-tap evidence in terrorism prosecutions and we accept that post-charge questioning in terror cases, with judicial oversight, should be allowed. However, the attack that the Labour UK Government has launched on our civil liberties cannot be justified. As a means of tackling terrorism, its policies have been criticised by everyone from Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5, to Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney General.
More than three and a half years ago, senior Government officials were warned that a mistake such as the child benefit fiasco was likely to happen if the Government did not change its systems, which auditors described as "a recipe for disaster". Unfortunately, that incident was not an isolated one: personal information relating to hundreds of Scottish national health service workers went missing in transit; and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Northern Ireland lost the personal details of 6,000 people. However, the UK Government is still ploughing on with its plans for identification cards.
We reject the compulsory ID card scheme. The London School of Economics thinks that the scheme could cost up to £18 billion over 10 years. Liberal Democrats, and many others, think that the money would be better spent on more police officers and intelligence-gathering services. It is even more galling when one realises that people will be expected to pay for the privilege of owning an ID card. That privilege could cost each of us anything up to £300 for a card that polls have shown a majority of people do not want.
The member's party met with others last week as part of a tripartite approach to establishing a commission to review the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Does the member's party support the transfer of legislative competence over ID cards to the Scottish Parliament, or does it believe that the British state should retain the prerogative to impose ID cards on the Scottish people?
The member will be aware that the Steel commission set out Liberal Democrat thinking on areas that a future constitutional convention should consider. I do not rule out such a convention giving consideration to the issue that he raises. As I progress through my speech, he will hear that we believe that the Scottish Government has a role to play in all of this, using the powers that it has at present.
More police would be good.
Indeed. That would be very good.
The Scottish Government should protect the people of Scotland by withholding from the database any information held by devolved institutions. The previous Lib Dem-Labour Executive stated clearly that ID cards would not be necessary to access devolved services. I hope that the Scottish Government will back that position. It should also allow the assistant information commissioner for Scotland to carry out spot checks on devolved institutions for compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998. That would ensure adherence to all the provisions in that act.
We should also recognise the dangers of going down the same road that the UK Government is going down with the DNA database. With 3 million people included on it and another name added every minute, the UK database will become the largest of its kind in the world and the only one to hold indefinitely the DNA profiles of innocent people.
In government, Liberal Democrats ensured that a balanced approach was taken to DNA retention that balanced public safety and civil liberties. We believe that an individual's DNA profile should be kept indefinitely if they are convicted, but removed if they are acquitted, except in certain key circumstances. During the passage of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, we proposed that DNA samples of those charged with violent or sexual offences should be retained for no more than three years; that the police should have the right to apply to the court for an extension; and that individuals should have the right of appeal in those cases. That practice is now being followed.
In the previous session, the Parliament voted against back-bench Labour members' attempts to create a database in Scotland that would keep indefinitely the DNA samples of innocent people. I hope that the Scottish National Party Government will continue to resist that blanket retention of DNA samples. Massive expansion in DNA record keeping has not led to a corresponding massive increase in crime detection. Since April 2003, although 1.5 million people have been added to the database, the chance of detecting a crime using DNA evidence has remained roughly constant at about 0.36 per cent.
Some people say that someone who has done nothing wrong should have no problem with their DNA being held. However, there are both principled and practical reasons why that view is wrong. There is always the risk of misidentification and false matches. The practice of extracting DNA profiles from a single cell has led the director of the forensic institute of Edinburgh to warn that innocent people may be wrongly identified as suspects as a consequence of being on the database.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.
There are concerns, too, about the integrity of the DNA database. Information from the database in England and Wales is used for alternative purposes, including genetic research. A number of staff at the Forensic Science Service were suspended following allegations that information may have been copied. One in 20 of the population of England and Wales is on the DNA database. Of those 3 million people, more than 1 million have never been convicted of a crime. That statistic led one English judge to suggest that the logical conclusion is to keep everyone's DNA.
What part does such a database play in attempts to work with ethnic communities across the country, when it includes almost 40 per cent of black males in England and Wales compared with 13 per cent of Asian males and 9 per cent of white males? We should not underestimate the message that such figures send to ethnic communities.
The SNP has had a number of different positions on the issue. Although we support the Scottish Government's review of DNA retention, we do not support its plans to hold indefinitely children's details on the Scottish database.
Liberal Democrats demand that a balanced approach is taken to tackling crime and terrorism—one that takes into account public safety and security on the one hand, and civil liberties on the other. We think that Scotland should stand out from the rest of the UK in its measured but determined response to terror and to protecting the freedoms of its people properly.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that the fundamental liberties enjoyed by generations of our citizens must not be eroded; welcomes the commitment by the previous Scottish Executive that ID cards would not be needed to access devolved services and its proportionate position on DNA retention; is concerned at the threat to civil liberties from the UK Government's expensive and unworkable proposal to introduce compulsory ID cards; believes that the Scottish Government should not put citizens' privacy at risk by allowing the UK ID database to access personal information held by the Scottish Government, local authorities or other devolved public agencies; therefore calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that all data protection procedures are secure and that audit of data under its jurisdiction is independent of government and accountable to the Parliament, and takes the view that there should be no blanket retention of DNA samples and that the Assistant Information Commissioner for Scotland should have specific powers to carry out spot checks on the compliance by Scottish government agencies and bodies with the Data Protection Act 1998.
The Liberal Democrat motion has some merit. However, it requires the tidying up that the Conservative amendment offers.
We all have to accept that the world changed dramatically on 11 September 2001 and that, to some extent, it will never be the same again. Clearly, the Government is entitled—indeed, it has a moral responsibility—to take action to do as much as possible to protect society against the attacks of international terrorists, particularly in light of the events in London of July 2005. However, its approach is totally wrong. ID cards will not work: that is the case, pure and simple, as former Home Secretary Charles Clarke admitted when he made the valid point that they would not have prevented the attacks in London on 7 July 2005. He said:
"I doubt it would have made a difference."
ID cards will not prevent illegal immigration. Foreign visitors will not require to hold an ID card. Indeed, it ill behoves a Government that presided over the shambles of an asylum policy that was found to open the door to everyone who wanted to come to the UK now to attempt by means of ID cards to slam the stable door once the horse has entered. The UK Government lacks all credibility in that respect.
ID cards might have value in preventing identity fraud, but the evidence suggests that their value might be limited. I can do no better than to quote Microsoft's UK national technology officer, who has said that the scheme could make the problem worse and could trigger identity fraud on a scale that has never been seen before. ID cards will not protect the victims of human trafficking. To be frank, cards are not the solution. We must consider a properly resourced border police force, which would go a long way to dealing with that problem.
The expense is an issue. Margaret Smith's figures are slightly at variance with mine, but it cannot be argued that the process will not be extremely expensive for the Government and for individuals. It has been estimated that ID cards will cost £20 billion in total, although the UK Government claims that the cost will be £5.4 billion. I suggest that one can have little confidence in the Government's projections, bearing in mind some of its outrageous information technology failures in the past.
Privacy is an important issue. The cards would contain in one place a tremendous amount of information about the individual. If the cards' privacy were to be violated, considerable difficulties could arise. Again, one cannot be entirely confident that that will not happen, bearing in mind the recent security breaches in the Government's processes.
The Scottish Government has much sympathy with the idea that ID cards will be costly. However, the Conservative amendment states that the money should instead be spent on other matters, including "more prison places". Will Bill Aitken clarify whether the Tories are arguing that we should build more prisons in Scotland than the Scottish Government is already committed to building? If that is the argument, how many additional prisons should be built using the ID card money?
We are committed to providing prison facilities to meet the need—that was made clear for all to see in our election manifesto. If an additional prison were required in central Scotland, a Conservative Government would have provided it.
The money that it is proposed to spend on ID cards could be an awful lot better spent, particularly on improving security through proper policing of our borders. That point is made in our amendment and that is the direction that we suggest. The capital investment that is involved in the project is tremendous and will not provide value for money. I accept that the Government must respond to the events of 2001 and 2005, but the ID card scheme is not the appropriate approach, as the costs are prohibitive and the interference with individuals' freedom and privacy makes the scheme morally indefensible. The bottom line is that the scheme simply will not work, for the reasons that I have outlined.
The UK Government must think again about the scheme. It is examining the situation and has anticipated that the difficulties will be a lot more severe than was originally thought. I hope that, whatever happens at decision time, we send a message to Westminster that the Government must review its stance on this difficult issue.
I move amendment S3M-1017.1, to insert at end:
"and believes that the money proposed to be spent on ID cards should be used for more worthwhile projects, such as a dedicated UK border police force, more prison places or on increasing the number of drug rehabilitation places."
I welcome the Liberal Democrat motion and commend Margaret Smith for much of her speech. Naturally, I begin by recalling the motion that Parliament agreed to in February 2005, when the Parliament first rejected ID cards. In that motion, I argued that the UK Government's Identity Cards Bill, as it was then, was
"flawed on political, technical and financial grounds",
that it offered
"an ineffective response to problems of security and fraud",
and that it posed
"an unacceptable threat to civil liberties".
I was pleased that Parliament agreed to that motion, even if on that occasion my good friends in the Liberal Democrats felt unable to support it—they abstained on the basis of a detail of wording. I will identify some details of wording in today's motion with which I could quibble, but its general spirit is enough to allow me to forgive those details. That is why I have lodged an amendment that would add two points to the motion and remove nothing. On that basis, I hope that the Liberal Democrats will support it.
I begin with the quibbles. Although I welcome the fact that the previous Administration was less than gung-ho on ID cards, I would not have given a simple endorsement of its position. At the time, Tom McCabe's commitments on ID cards were always just a wee bit hedged. I would not go so far as to say that he wanted to keep the door open to ID cards, but the commitments were generally on only the cards themselves. Compulsory ID cards are symbolic of the slow but relentless erosion of civil liberties that has taken place under the Labour Government at Westminster. However, beyond the cards, many campaigners have long argued—and I agree—that the real threat is from the national identity register, the database that will underpin the system. The motion shows an understanding of that, but the commitments that the previous Administration gave on the use of the database were always rather weaker than those that were asked for.
The position in Scotland on DNA retention is similarly open to criticism. The Lib Dems call it proportionate—it certainly does not go as far as some had wished.
I am sure that the member will have read the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report that commends the previous Scottish Administration's measures when compared with those in England and Wales. Indeed, the report said that the measures set a benchmark for other European countries.
I note the Nuffield view; I am describing my own view.
The measures go further than allowing the retention of information or of someone's name on a list of people who have been accused but not convicted. They establish the principle that the state has the right forcibly to obtain and to keep the DNA of innocent people, implying that the individual's biology is the property of the state in at least some circumstances and can be used for the state's purposes without consent. I disagree.
Beyond those caveats in relation to the motion, I raise two specific points in my amendment. One relates to data protection principles. I draw members' attention to the briefing by NO2ID, which acknowledges that security is important, as mentioned in the motion. That issue is under a lot of discussion in the aftermath of the Government's gross negligence and incompetence in losing the personal data of 25 million people. However, there are seven other important principles to remember. My other point is on citizen accounts, to which we must apply the same principles by which we condemn ID cards. There is a danger that we will end up with a system that looks more like an ID database than a bus pass database.
I agree with the Conservatives' criticism in their amendment of the cost of the ID card scheme—I welcome the defence of civil liberties from any part of the political spectrum. However, it would, to say the least, be ironic if in a debate on civil liberties we ended up concluding that we need to lock up more people in this country. We already lock up more people than most European countries do, and it would be wrong to reinforce that situation. The possibility that a future Conservative Government might scrap the ID card scheme would be a silver lining to the dark rain cloud of such a Government. I hope that the Parliament will reinforce our objection to the relentless attack on civil liberties from Westminster.
I move amendment S3M-1017.2, to leave out from "are secure" to "accountable to the Parliament" and insert:
"comply with the principles of data protection, namely that personal information must be fairly and lawfully processed, processed for limited purposes, adequate, relevant and not excessive, accurate and up to date, not kept for longer than necessary, processed in line with individuals' rights, secure and not transmitted to other countries without adequate protection, and that audit of data under its jurisdiction is independent of government and accountable to the Parliament; further calls on the Scottish Government to review plans for Scottish Citizens Accounts on the basis of these principles".
I welcome the debate, which is timely in the light of recent events that have affected the UK Government and which raises serious issues of which we must all be aware. The debate provides an opportunity for the Scottish Government to state where we stand on the issues. Our civil liberties are extremely important to each and every one of us, so Margaret Smith is right to make the case for safeguarding them, as is Patrick Harvie, who made a typically spirited speech.
Identify theft is a growing problem. People need to regain their confidence that the Government can keep private details safe, which they have lost in recent weeks. Margaret Smith rightly pointed to the difference between the UK Government's policies on identity cards and how those issues have been addressed in this Parliament. All parties in the previous and current parliamentary sessions have shared a commitment to embedding good practice on data protection in such matters. That reflects the wider and deeply held values in Scotland. The Scottish Government shares members' desire to ensure that Scotland is not and never can be a surveillance state.
The Scottish Government takes issues of data protection extremely seriously and has in place standards on the storage and transmission of, and access to, data of a sensitive nature. In the light of the problems that have been encountered by HM Revenue and Customs, John Swinney announced that we would conduct a co-ordinated review of information security policies and data-handling arrangements in Scotland. There is no room for complacency on such issues in the days of e-mail correspondence, when matters that were intended to remain private are inherently more susceptible to being leaked or inadvertently published than any of us would wish. The fact that many politicians have discovered that fundamental truth to their cost has served only to increase public entertainment and amusement.
The review, which is now well under way, is considering existing procedures for the protection of data, their consistency with Government-wide standards and policies, and arrangements for ensuring that policies and procedures are being fully and correctly implemented. That assessment will allow the Government to establish whether there is a need for further measures to improve the security of sensitive information. We take such matters extremely seriously—we are not talking about a paper review. In the early days of our Government, we need to find out whether existing procedures are acceptable and whether they have been effective.
Can the minister confirm that the proposal in the motion that the assistant information commissioner for Scotland
"should have specific powers to carry out spot checks on the compliance by Scottish Government agencies and bodies with the Data Protection Act 1998"
will be considered in the review?
You have one minute left, minister.
I support that call. The powers of the information commissioner are, of course, a reserved matter; I am delighted that the Lib Dems presumably want them to become a devolved matter. I wait with interest to find out whether that is the position of their future potential coalition and commission partners.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I cannot.
The Government shares Margaret Smith's concerns about the UK ID card, which we have consistently opposed, on the grounds that it will be costly, will infringe civil liberties and will not achieve its primary stated objective. The methodology seems foggy and opaque, to put it kindly. I reassure members of all parties and the people of Scotland that the UK ID card will not be required to access devolved services.
On DNA, the Government has made it clear that it does not support the blanket retention of all forensic information that is taken from innocent people. I hope to expand on that in my summing-up comments. I await the rest of the debate with interest.
Labour members will in every way protect the civil liberties of the many. We have made that case on many occasions, for example by passing the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, thereby protecting the civil liberties of local residents, and by passing the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, which secured the civil liberties of paramedics. We have rebalanced the civil liberties debate to ensure that everyone has such protection. That is an important part of what we are discussing today.
Margaret Smith's motion on behalf of the Liberal Democrats refers to the erosion of civil liberties and makes specific mention of ID cards. The Parliament cannot ignore the fact that we need a more robust and secure way of checking people's identities and ensuring that they are who they say they are. Margaret Smith failed to provide an alternative to ID cards; the Liberal Democrats have made no such proposals.
The reason why Paul Martin did not hear me discuss any alternative is that his initial premise is flawed. As we heard from Bill Aitken, Charles Clarke is one of the many members of the Labour Party who do not view ID cards as a way of tackling terrorism. If ID cards are simply about finding out who people are, they are an extremely expensive way of doing that.
We will come on to the issue of cost, which is an important part of the debate. It is also important to point out that the Westminster Government has never considered fighting terrorism to be a policy objective of ID cards. However, they will not do any harm in that respect.
Will the member give way?
I cannot take any more interventions.
Let us deal with a number of the myths about ID cards. One such myth is that people will be required to carry their ID cards, which members of other parties have claimed on a number of occasions, but it is clear from the Identity Cards Act 2006 that citizens will not be required to carry their ID cards. It is not helpful to peddle such misconceptions.
Another myth is that the ID card database will carry a wide range of information on card holders—Bill Aitken said that. However, the 2006 act is clear about what information will be held. My insurance company holds more information on me than will be held on the ID card database. The 2006 act provides no evidence that more information will be held by the Government on the database than my insurance company holds on me.
You have one minute left.
We cannot ignore the fact that 24 out of 27 member states of the European Union already have such a scheme in place. It would be crass of us not to learn from the European experience. Members often refer to what happens in other European countries, but no one has seen fit to do that in this morning's debate.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
I remind Jeremy Purvis that it was a Labour amendment to the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that allowed us to retain DNA samples from people who have been prosecuted for violent or sexual crimes. I hope that evaluation of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 will prove that that measure has been successful.
DNA retention also helps to prove the innocence of people who have been falsely convicted of crimes, as a number of highly publicised cases involving people who had been incarcerated for many years have demonstrated.
You should be finishing now.
Debates on such matters should take place in Westminster if they are to be constructive. I hope that, in the rest of the debate, our Liberal Democrat colleagues will do what they have not done so far and reveal their proposals for a scheme that is more effective than ID cards.
We move to the open debate. Speakers will have an extremely strict four minutes.
Let me begin by praising Margaret Smith for lodging the motion that has facilitated today's debate, which is on a subject that I consider to be of the utmost importance to our society.
The significance of civil liberties and broader concepts of human rights are all too often maligned and downplayed, but I can think of little that is of more importance to the human experience than the rights and freedoms that we all too often take for granted. We should not take those rights and freedoms for granted, because many of them were hard fought for and won by our forebears many years ago.
For that reason, I am proud to be the convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on human rights and civil liberties. I am not sure whether that means that I must declare an interest, but I do so nonetheless. It is important that the cross-party group ensures that issues surrounding human rights and civil liberties are kept on the Parliament's agenda, because too many of our basic civil liberties are at risk.
I welcome the opportunity for the Parliament to discuss ID cards, the retention of DNA by the authorities and related matters. In that regard, I am in broad agreement with the Liberal Democrat motion. It would be useful for us to consider many of the human rights and civil liberties issues that are not mentioned in the motion, although I note that Margaret Smith referred to some of them in her speech. For example, the attempts by the Government in London to impose lengthy terms of detention on suspects without charge by the police are one of the great challenges to basic civil liberties in our time. I am concerned that the current 28-day period is already too long, so I was delighted when the Government was rebuffed in its outrageous attempt to lengthen that to 90 days.
However, attempts are again being made to extend the period of detention without charge. Such a measure will have limited effectiveness and I am concerned that it smacks of the policy of internment that was applied elsewhere in these islands in the past. That policy was counterproductive and failed to achieve its aims. We should learn the lessons of the past and be wary of curtailing one of the most fundamental civil liberties that our citizens enjoy—the right not to be put under lock and key without being charged with an offence. However, that is not what we are discussing today.
I am equally alarmed by the advent of the state-led database society that we are rapidly blundering towards. The idea that every citizen in the land might be legally required to carry some form of identity card in what is not a time of national extremity or emergency horrifies me.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
That is what the Government proposes, and that will be the effect of the Identity Cards Act 2006. Much like internment, however, I believe that the measure will be ineffectual. We are regularly told that ID cards are required to stem the great threat that we face from terrorism. I understand that society faces the problem of terrorism, but the notion that we can counter that threat by ensuring that every citizen carries a little card or a bit of paper with their name on it is patently absurd. Hardened terrorists will not be put off by an ID card scheme. They will circumvent it with ease, as they did in Spain when they let off the bombs in Madrid. Spain has an ID card system, but it offered no serious barrier to acts of terror.
Nor will an ID card scheme have a useful purpose in tackling identity fraud. However, it will further curtail individuals' liberty to go about their daily business without fear of interference from the state. There is a danger that a culture of fear and intimidation will establish itself at a time when distrust of the police and authorities is already building in certain communities. A national ID database will itself be a security risk, not least if the UK Government accidentally loses the computer disks on which it is held.
You should be finishing now, Mr Hepburn.
The idea of a database of the DNA of those who have committed no crime is also anathema to me. The suggestion that the state should be allowed to hold information on the genetic make-up of people who have committed no crime and done no wrong is outrageous.
You need to finish, Mr Hepburn.
I welcome the Liberal Democrats' motion and look forward to supporting it this evening.
I remind members again that, if they run over their time, they prevent someone else from getting in. That is members' responsibility and not mine.
In this short debate, it is not possible to cover every erosion of everyone's rights by the UK Labour Government. The Labour Party seems unable to comprehend the concept or importance of individual civil liberties or individual human rights. I say to Paul Martin that we cannot protect civil liberties for the many because civil liberties are not divisible. The erosion of one person's rights affects us all.
We cannot protect our rights and freedoms against the threats from the extremists who seek to undermine them by removing those rights and freedoms. That is why we must oppose any extension of detention without charge. The current period of 28 days is already longer than that of any other democratic country. Even the Director of Public Prosecutions, the former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, and the Government's Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Security and Counter-terrorism, Lord West, have questioned whether there is any evidence to justify an extension.
The Liberal Democrats oppose the blanket retention of DNA samples from those, including many children, who have never been charged with anything.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have limited time.
It is thanks to the Liberal Democrats in the previous Scottish Government that further erosions of our civil liberties, such as the blanket retention of DNA, were prevented.
This morning, I concentrate on the massive threat to our privacy and freedom of movement that is posed by the UK Government's ID cards scheme. ID cards will not deliver in relation to any of the reasons why the Government claims that they are needed. I say to Paul Martin that the Home Office's website claims that ID cards will help to counter terrorism. They will not prevent identity theft, fraud, or organised crime, and there is not a shred of evidence that they will prevent terrorism. The 9/11 bombers and the Madrid bombers were all travelling on legitimate identities, as the London bombers would have been.
We know from experience that it is predominantly young black and Asian males who will be subjected to ID checks. As Margaret Smith said, that is the case with DNA retention in England, where 40 per cent of black males and 13 per cent of Asian males are on the register compared with just 9 per cent of white males. ID cards will lead to discrimination and prejudice, which ultimately lead to disaffection and alienation.
ID cards are bad enough, but the national identity register is breathtaking in its scope and foolhardiness. Who would trust the UK Government to implement such a massive information technology project on time and on budget, and to create a system that can do its job? As Patrick Harvie's amendment reminds us, there are eight principles of data protection. The national identity register fails to meet those principles. Information must be processed for a limited purpose; it must be relevant and not excessive; and it must not be kept for longer than necessary. However, some information would be kept for a lifetime.
Information must also be secure. Let us look at the Government's record on security. Data disks fly round the country and go just about anywhere except where they are meant to be. Bank details of half the population have been lost. Details of vehicle registrations of people in Northern Ireland have been lost. We should consider the security issues.
Will ID cards prevent identity theft? Pull the other one. The Government's obsession with huge databases threatens the identities of millions of people. The best way to keep data secure is not to hold data in the first place. If we do not need information, we should not hold it. The Government intends to create another huge database that will contain identity information well beyond what could reasonably be needed. It will be linked to other Government agency databases, which will give hundreds of thousands of public sector workers access to sensitive identity information. That will put at risk the privacy of sensitive personal information on health, sexual history and financial and other records.
Unprecedented amounts of data are being collected and retained, which shatters our right to privacy. The unanswered question is why the Labour Government feels the need to have access to so much information about its citizens. What does it plan to do with it?
Identity cards will also threaten our freedom of travel. The e-Borders project will give the Government huge powers to track and restrict our travel. It is already destroying the common travel area between the United Kingdom and Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The threat of terrorism is being used to justify increased restrictions on our freedom without any evidence that it is necessary or proportionate.
For far too long, the UK has been sleepwalking into becoming a surveillance society. I hope that, today, the Scottish Parliament will send a message to Whitehall that the Government's job is to protect and promote our civil liberties and individual rights, not to undermine them.
I ask members to look at all the cards that I am holding up. How many of our constituents carry such cards in their pockets? They include loyalty cards, membership cards, bank cards and insurance cards. We all carry such cards, and all kinds of agencies hold information. It is a nonsense to suggest that ID cards will do anything other than protect us. Most members of the European Union have voluntary or compulsory identity cards. Apart from the United Kingdom, the only member states with no form of identity card scheme are Ireland, Denmark, Latvia and Lithuania. It is important to take on board the wider perspective.
I am bemused by the Tories' position this morning. In 1994, they brought forward their own proposals for ID cards. Over the decades, it seems to be a case of, "Will they, won't they, will they, won't they, will they join the dance?" When Annabel Goldie took part in a debate on identity cards just a couple of years ago, she said:
"The Conservatives, in principle, support ID cards. I cannot make that any clearer."—[Official Report, 24 February 2005; c 14736.]
This morning, the opponents of ID cards set out many objections to the way in which our Labour Government will protect the people of this country. I refer those opponents to the many submissions that provided expert opinion to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which undertook a massive consideration of the issue. In particular, I highlight the memorandum from the Information Commissioner, who said:
"There is no inherent reason why all proposals for an identity card would be unacceptable on data protection and human rights grounds. However, such a proposal could only ever be acceptable if it included the necessary safeguards at every stage of development to ensure data protection compliance."
Another striking memorandum that was submitted to the select committee during the legislative process at Westminster is the one from the Association of Chief Police Officers. I point out to the Tories, given their views on crime and trying to get a grip on it, that ACPO stated:
"ACPO believes that the introduction of a national ID card scheme could deliver considerable benefits. Many areas of policing would benefit, not least the ability of the police to better protect and serve the public. As with many of our partners we have never seen ID cards as a panacea—but we do believe they could be a key part of broader strategic solutions to a range of community safety issues."
In its submission, ACPO went into more detail on terrorism, organised and volume crime, identity fraud and police working practices. For Fergus Ewing's benefit, I will highlight one comment:
"Vehicle crime and illegal driving is endemic in the UK. Making the carrying of the driving licence compulsory would save £220 million per year and the equivalent of"—
wait for it—
"1,630 police officers. Speedier driver identification through the production of an ID card would assist with the fight against vehicle crime and better protect the public."
On stop and search and on-street identification ACPO was
"pleased to see that where non-arrestable offences are involved Section 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act procedures will still apply."
It was also pleased about the implications for street bail, public disorder and bureaucracy. ACPO went on at great length to say what the benefits of an ID card would be on those.
Let us consider illegal working and immigration abuse, which have been tremendous issues for people in the United Kingdom. Since January 2002, when an asylum application is made, the applicant is screened and his or her personal details are recorded. That is of real benefit. The Law Society, the Commission for Racial Equality, the British Medical Association and other agencies support ID cards.
Listening to the previous speaker, I thought that the Labour Party should change the title of its policy from civil liberties to taking liberties.
I welcome the Liberal Democrats' conversion to the independence cause. It is clear from the motion that they have come a long way since February 2005, when they abstained on a Green motion opposing ID cards. Bizarrely, shortly before he and the other Lib Dems abstained, Jeremy Purvis accused the Conservatives of being indecisive. He said:
"The Conservatives are sitting on the fence. They originally supported the proposals and are now abstaining."—[Official Report, 24 February 2005; c 14719.]
Then the Lib Dems abstained—oh, the delicious irony!
In 2005, the Lib Dems' position before they abstained was to welcome the commitment that ID cards would not be needed for accessing devolved services, but today they are going much further: Margaret Smith wants to ensure that our fundamental liberties are not eroded. She will be delighted to know that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice opposed a blanket DNA database back in 2005, when the Lib Dems were busy abstaining. It is lovely to see them finally starting to follow where the SNP has been leading for years.
More than that, Margaret Smith's motion asks the SNP Government to pick a fight with Westminster over access to personal information that is held by the Scottish public sector. Not so long ago, the Opposition coalition said that we should never pick fights with London and now the Lib Dems are encouraging us to do so. They really should make up their minds one way or another.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry, but I am not a minister yet.
I would not be inclined to wait.
I have a short time.
The Lib Dems can rest assured that we will pick the fights that we need to pick in order to stand up for Scotland. They can be certain that every SNP member will stand up for Scotland whenever that is needed and can sleep soundly at night safe in the knowledge that the SNP Government is working hard for Scotland and standing up for Scotland every day.
The SNP has been fighting Scotland's cause for a long time. We know what the terrain is like. We know what has to be done and we are prepared to do it. That is why we know that the way to stop Westminster and Whitehall accessing Scots' personal information is to repatriate the power to protect it, which is why I am delighted to note that Margaret Smith advocates the return of all powers to Scotland. That is a remarkable contribution to the national conversation, and I hope that the Lib Dems will give even more consideration to the undeniable case for Scottish independence.
The SNP and—to be fair—the Greens have been opposing the insanity of the ID card scheme since its inception. There can be few more telling arguments against giving the London establishment access to our personal information than the recent madness that was caused when the data of every family that is entitled to child benefit—that is, all of them—were downloaded on to a couple of CDs and sent through the post. An old Scots term jumps to mind—eejits.
It is abundantly clear that we cannot trust London with our personal data any more than we can trust it with looking after Scotland's interests. The current overhyped panic about terrorism is being used as a smokescreen for the introduction of a number of repressive measures that we would never countenance in other circumstances. The ID card nonsense is just one of them.
It is still possible to protect those liberties and save us from the creep of the state, but we must act concertedly. It is time to turn this Parliament into the kind of Parliament that can and will protect our liberties. It is, of course, time for independence.
I would normally welcome the opportunity to take part in a debate in the Parliament, but this one is not the best use of the Parliament's time. There is no doubt about the technical competence of the motion, because it refers to devolved matters, but there is also no doubt in my mind that it has been drafted and contrived to attack the Labour Party.
David Steel once famously told the Liberal Party conference delegates to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government. My message to the Lib Dems is that they should go back to their constituencies and ask their constituents what they want to be debated in the Scottish Parliament. If my postbag is anything to go by, people want to talk about how we can get a fair deal on the housing budget, why the SNP has broken its promises on policing and how we can get further funding into higher education.
I note that the member does not credit his constituents with any interest in civil liberties. On the blanket retention of DNA samples, would his constituents be more or less inclined to participate in future mass DNA testing if they knew that their DNA samples would be kept for all time despite their innocence?
With all due respect, that intervention has bitten a good chunk out of my speech. The priorities for my constituents are health, housing and education. That is reflected in my postbag.
Only four Lib Dem members are present. That reflects the priority that the debate has for the Liberal Democrats.
There is a case for ID cards. There is no doubt that crime is a big issue in the Parliament and in communities throughout Scotland. The introduction of ID cards would improve detection rates, reduce crime and make our communities safer.
Will James Kelly give way?
I am sorry, but I am short on time.
ID cards would also help to combat the use of illegal workers to undercut the minimum wage. The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is one of the landmark pieces of legislation passed in the past 10 years, but it has been undermined by unscrupulous employers who take on illegal workers and pay them under the rate of the minimum wage. The introduction of ID cards would compel employers to recruit workers legally and pay them the rate for the job.
There is no doubt that the recent spate of terror attacks adds to the case for ID cards. I was in London at the time of one of the terror attacks. It is all very well for members to smile, but it was really worrying to see the fear in people's faces as I moved around train stations, airports and workplaces. I acknowledge that introducing ID cards would not necessarily stop terror attacks, but it would definitely help the police when such chaos breaks out.
The debate could have been used for something more relevant to the Parliament, but it has given us an opportunity to consider some of the arguments for ID cards.
The UK Government insists that we must have ID cards to fight terrorism and that without ID cards our way of life is threatened. Yes—faced with the prospect of having to forge a UK ID card, a terrorist will immediately abandon his planned atrocity and look elsewhere. One might imagine that, as the terrorist forges an ID card, it will suddenly and without warning fall from his nerveless fingers as he realises the enormity of the terrible crime that he is about to commit: the forging of a UK ID card. It will not occur to terrorists to use their own identities—apart, perhaps, from the 80 per cent who do use their own identities. It is equally irrelevant that most terrorist attacks have occurred in countries that already have ID cards because the UK card will be unique among ID cards: it will be unforgeable.
Unlike the situation in Spain or in the United States of America, no individual who carries a UK ID card will be capable of a violent act. Furthermore, its existence will never be abused by the authorities. The word "never" is important—we must trust not just this Government, but all future Governments. Trust is needed, for the proposed ID cards are like no other card.
In Germany, data centralisation is forbidden for historical reasons, and when cards are replaced the records are not linked. Germany fully appreciates the danger of a government having too much power or knowledge. Similarly, Belgium specifically prevents data sharing—an approach that is the opposite to that of the Home Office. If we look for parallels to the UK scheme, we should not look to Europe, but to the countries of the Middle East. Indeed, the UK Government's admiration for nations such as Saudi Arabia was highlighted by its recent red-carpet treatment of King Abdullah—a red carpet that was laid down as a gang-raped victim was sentenced to public flogging in Saudi Arabia.
To what degree can we trust such a dangerous and powerful tool as ID cards? If we want to know, we should look at the British Government's record on human rights and civil liberties in other countries. It could be argued that immediately after it gained power, the UK Government showed its contempt for human rights by selling Hawk ground-attack aircraft to assist in the genocidal assaults in East Timor. It could be argued that the Government showed further contempt when it took part in sanctions that left over half a million children under the age of five dead, and which were described by senior United Nations officials as genocide. It could be argued that the UK Government shows contempt for human rights and civil liberties in continuing the policy of a previous Labour Government—the ethnic cleansing of Diego Garcia.
There are, of course, instances closer to home as well. The evidence for rendition, and that the victims of rendition are tortured, is overwhelming. Those victims have passed through our airports on our soil—we have participated in the illegal seizure, detention and torture of defenceless victims. On those grounds alone, we have sufficient cause to reject the UK Government's ID cards. No Government that participates in, or turns a blind eye to, such fundamental breaches of civil liberties is fit to govern—it is not fit to be trusted with the powerful resource of an ID card. When it comes to ID cards, the UK Government is not fit for purpose.
Before supporting the introduction of ID cards, we might do well to recall the words of Benjamin Franklin:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It is easy to disagree with James Kelly's speech. This has been a worthwhile and important debate. Margaret Smith, in speaking on ID cards, quite rightly focused more strongly on data than on the piece of plastic. That is one of the key arguments that is so often missed by those who take a different view. In relation to DNA retention, she disposed effectively of the idea that people who had done nothing wrong should have nothing to fear from having their DNA held. Bill Aitken told us that the world changed with 9/11 and the London bombings—I and my party reject much of the "war on terror" rhetoric, just as we reject the "tough on crime" rhetoric, as both are self-defeating. Although Bill Aitken and I might not agree on the whole agenda, I hope that we can agree with the quotation from Bill Wilson on liberty and security.
Bill Aitken also reminded us that Microsoft, of all companies, has warned us about the data security issues with the ID card system; that is from the company that brought us Windows Vista and Outlook Express—I will say no more. Fergus Ewing told us that Scotland is not—and never should be—a surveillance state. That was a welcome comment from the minister. He also gave commitments to examine issues of data protection in relation to the Government's internal review. I hope that the scope of that review will not be limited to data protection alone, but will also address wider issues of privacy.
Paul Martin told us that we need a more secure way of identifying people. Who needs it? Individuals often need to identify themselves, but the UK identity card system is focused only on the self-identified needs of the Government, not on individuals' right and need to control the data that are held about them. I am glad that he condemned the idea of requiring citizens to carry ID cards, but he also said that those who suggest that that will happen are being unhelpful. I remind him of the comments of the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who said in the House of Commons in December 2004:
"it is legitimate and right, in this day and age, to ask people to carry identity cards".—[Official Report, House of Commons, 1 December 2004; Vol 428, c 625.]
Will the member give way?
I do not have time for an intervention.
I accept that carrying of cards is not in the bill, but it is in people's minds, and that is the problem.
Paul Martin said, finally, that we should learn from other European countries that have ID cards. I remind him that the most serious criticism of his party's ID system is about the database, not the piece of plastic. No other country has attempted a system of the nature of the national identity register. The public sector is, generally, a bit rubbish at procuring big and complex information technology systems. The ID card system is perhaps the biggest and most complex Government IT system ever attempted. It is a disaster waiting to happen, with an astonishing price tag attached.
I would have too much to say about Helen Eadie's contribution to fit it in to one minute, so I will just skip over some of the points. The one saving grace of the Labour Party members' various contributions today is that they did not use the refrain that was so often repeated by Labour members in the previous debate on ID cards, who told us time and again, "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." I am glad that Labour has dropped that line, because it is destined to go down in history alongside other such unconvincing excuses as, "I was only obeying orders," or that other classic, "Sorry officer—I thought the money was being routed through an onshore company." The ID card excuses are equally unconvincing, and I am glad that we are hearing fewer of them today. I hope that the chamber agrees to the Liberal Democrat motion, and I commend the Green amendment to it.
In today's debate, we have heard about the UK Labour Government's attack on civil liberties, with national ID cards and the plans to extend DNA retention. Those schemes are not just a fruitless attempt by the UK Government to propagate its political agenda—they are a direct infringement of the civil liberties of the British people. As we have heard from a number of members today, national identity cards are a waste of money and an invasion of privacy, and will not prevent terrorist attacks, identity fraud or human trafficking. Indeed, as we heard from Bill Aitken and others, a former Labour Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, admitted that ID cards would not have prevented the 2005 London bombings. As Jamie Hepburn pointed out, we need look only to Spain for further evidence of that—the Spanish Government requires national identity cards, but that did nothing to prevent the terrible bombings in Madrid in 2004.
The UK Labour Government and Mr Martin have yet to produce any evidence to support the introduction of ID cards. However, there is much evidence against their introduction, and we have heard those arguments from a number of members today. Not only will the national identity card scheme prove to be useless at tackling the problems that it is supposed to address, it will also be a reckless waste of money on the part of the Labour Government—I will dwell on that point. The scheme will require a £93 fee for a combined ID card and passport package. If your card is lost or stolen, or if you change your name when you get married, a £30 fee will be imposed for the new ID card that will have to be issued.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry—I am short of time.
Perhaps most shocking of all is the £1,000 fine if a relative dies and one forgets to return their national ID card to the registry. The entire scheme, as Margaret Smith pointed out, will cost up to £20 billion in total, which is confirmed by the London School of Economics. That is four times the estimate that has been put forward by the Labour Government.
If that is not enough to put us off such a daft idea, let us look at the agency that has been tasked with running the ID card scheme: IPS, the identity and passport service. In the past nine years, there have been four separate security breaches at that agency. All it takes is one such occurrence, and all our national identity data could be released into the wrong hands. Such a breach of the national registry of security would have massive consequences for the British people. The Conservatives believe that, instead of spending inordinate amounts of money on a scheme for which there is no evidence that it will be a success, the ID card scheme should be scrapped and the funding reallocated to bring about four different things: the creation of more prisons, more prison drug rehabilitation facilities, more police officers and better border controls. Using those funds to build more prison facilities will greatly reduce the overcrowding in our current prisons and improve the drug rehabilitation services. The funds could be used to create new UK border police officers to prevent and detect illegal immigration, which ID cards are supposed to do. They could be used to put more police officers on the streets, which would create a stronger police force. As we have said many times before in Parliament, increasing local police forces in Scotland would act as a powerful deterrent and would help to reduce the fear of crime.
ID cards are a bad idea. They will do nothing to improve our citizens' safety. They are not the answer to the threat of terrorism or to tackling benefit fraud, illegal immigration, human trafficking or identity theft. They are a waste of money. I am pleased to confirm what Patrick Harvie said. When David Cameron leads the Conservatives back into government at Westminster, we will abolish ID cards.
The Liberal Democrat motion states:
"That the Parliament believes that the fundamental liberties enjoyed by generations of our citizens must not be eroded".
It is difficult to disagree with that statement, but the question is whether those liberties have been eroded. Some people prefer to use the term "fundamental human rights", but whatever term is preferred, it cannot be denied that the landscape has changed in recent years. The introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 has progressed human rights, the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission has been created, religious discrimination and age discrimination have been adopted into the definition of "equality", and Labour has taken a strong stance on important civil liberties issues such as workers' and parents' rights, the creation of civil partnerships and gender recognition. The Liberal Democrats have joined us in dealing with those issues.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry. I would, but I have very little time.
It is arguable that the Liberal Democrat motion does not recognise that there have been improvements in some civil liberties areas.
The previous Executive stated that ID cards would not be needed to access devolved services. I support that sentiment. Helen Eadie was right that one of the starting points in such debates is that the amount of information that is held on us not only by the Government but by others, including private sector companies, is becoming frightening for many individuals.
The Liberal Democrats are concerned that ID cards are a "threat to civil liberties", but the national identity scheme will allow people to prove their identity more easily. It will be harder for their identity to be stolen or misused, because it will be protected by biometrics, and the scheme can prevent criminals from using false or multiple identities.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will not.
Are Iain Smith and others saying that the public are wrong? All the surveys have shown that, whatever we think, the public support an identity scheme. Are members of the other parties saying that their constituents are wrong? The scheme cannot be universally compulsory until a further act of Parliament is passed, so there is still debate to be had.
There is a global move to strengthen the security of identity documents using fingerprints and facial biometric technology. Countries around the world are already moving to strengthen the security of passports by adding fingerprints to them. The scheme builds on things that we are already investing in, such as immigration documents and passports, which will include a fingerprint chip. Indeed, the cost of biometric passports will be a substantial part of the costs of introducing ID cards. ID cards are an important issue to debate, and I would say much more about them, but time is short.
Jamie Hepburn may be chair of the cross-party group on human rights and civil liberties, but he should at least use correct information when he debates. Section 16 of the Identity Cards Act 2006 is clear. There will be no requirement to carry an ID card. That is the right position, which Labour members will argue for. It is clear that there is a challenge for the Government, particularly in the light of the issues relating to HM Revenue and Customs that Margaret Smith highlighted, but let us not forget that the Scottish Government had to come to the chamber and make an apology for missing records for which it was responsible. That is an issue for all Governments. The UK Government will have to address the issue of trust, and I am sure that it will do so as its position on ID cards progresses. However, the UK Government will make a decision, as the matter is mostly reserved.
Citizens have a fundamental right to feel safe, and members cannot simply stand on the sidelines and criticise. They should give us their solutions.
The debate has been helpful and entertaining. At least all members share common aims. We want to ensure that data are secure and we have a common view on the importance of protecting civil liberties. We in Scotland can do things differently at the heart of services that are designed and delivered to protect people's privacy.
I particularly enjoyed the spirited speeches that have been made. Bill Wilson did a good demolition job on some fundamental ideas behind the notion that ID cards will combat terrorism. People always want to feel safe, but the idea that ID cards will deliver that safety is not proven.
I may be the first minister in this Government to mention the fictitious Jim Hacker in "Yes, Minister". If stories were to be written about him now, he might be undone by someone using his surname as an occupation. Data protection is inherently more difficult and challenging than it was before the age of electronic communication.
Professor Fraser's report on the DNA review is expected in 2008. It will be published and it will help to inform future policy development.
The Scottish Government's strategic board has set up a team, which is led by the justice and communities director general, to support and co-ordinate a data security review. If Patrick Harvie is concerned about whether that review will go far enough and he has specific suggestions to make, he should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth—we would like to take his ideas into account. All bodies under Scottish central Government, including the national health service, have been asked to confirm their compliance with existing information security policies, to complete a detailed data-handling questionnaire and to offer any practical recommendations for improvements or better risk management. In addition, all Scottish Government staff have been reminded of the need to adhere to data protection rules. The review team is currently collating responses to the questionnaires and is due to report soon to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth.
Members are keen to see greater independent data protection audits and greater accountability. We share their objectives, but we need to take a proportionate approach. Consultants do not come cheap—and how. We will consider carefully how to involve an independent element in reviewing data security, particularly in areas of greater risk.
I want to say a bit more about DNA because I did not have the opportunity to expand much on the issue in my opening remarks. We are not persuaded that it would be correct for the police to retain fingerprints and DNA samples from everyone who is detained but not convicted or even prosecuted. Margaret Smith made a fairly strong case for that view. I hope that no one would argue that the DNA of every UK citizen should be retained on record, although the logic of those who argue that the police should retain fingerprints and DNA samples is that that should be the case. I think that Labour has retreated from that position, although I am not certain. However, we look forward to the report.
I think that Mr Tom McNulty, who is a Labour Home Office minister, supported Lord Justice Sedley's calls to put the entire population on a DNA database. Therefore, the Labour Party has not rejected that idea.
I had not intended to comment on the emerging differences between the former Scottish Executive partners. However, as the matter has been raised, it seems that there will be interesting times ahead in view of their diametrically opposed views on biometrics when the constitutional commission is set up to consider whether powers over ID data protection and powers that relate to DNA that are not entirely devolved should be devolved. We believe that all such powers should be devolved, but the Labour Party apparently does not. I am not sure what the Liberals' and the Conservatives' positions are, although I think Helen Eadie reminded members that the Tories' position has changed. They used to be in favour of ID cards, or were in favour of them in principle—I am not quite sure what their position was. I think that she mentioned that the Conservatives are now no longer prepared to dance—they are no longer prepared to do the tango together as they used to. All I can say is:
"There may be trouble ahead",
so,
"Let's face the music and dance".
In this debate, we are happy just to hold the jackets of the dancing partners—Labour, Liberal and Conservative—as they enter the new sunlit uplands of the commission and decide whether any, all or some of these matters should or should not be devolved.
I am glad to sum up for the Liberal Democrats in this debate on civil liberties—an issue that is built in with the bricks for Liberals, but on which the course of events has brought many other people to agree with us. I was pleased with three quarters of the minister's response to the debate. It is unfortunate that he and Christina McKelvie tried to make a constitutional issue of it.
The Labour Party's position appears to show signs of schizophrenia. On one hand, James Kelly sees no merit in having a debate on the matter, believing that the £18 million that is to be spent on an ID card scheme could not be better spent in any other way. On the other hand, Pauline McNeill—who also made a valid point about the data that are held in private hands—welcomed the debate as an important one. I agree with Pauline McNeill rather than with James Kelly.
The line-up in the debate is different from the line-up for the previous one. That is not surprising, given that we face proposals to extend the time for which a person who is suspected of terrorism can be held. As Iain Smith rightly pointed out, some people want to hold everyone's DNA in a database—babes in arms or adults, charged and convicted or not—and the Labour Government wants to introduce a hugely expensive, unworkable and unnecessary scheme for compulsory ID cards. Given that Professor Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of DNA fingerprinting, has been hugely critical of the UK Government's position on ID cards, we should perhaps think again about some aspects of the scheme.
The word "unnecessary", which I have used in connection with ID cards, is the key to what is wrong with the UK Government's thinking. No substantial case has been made for any of the changes to be imposed on us by the Government that has brought us the Child Support Agency farce and various other Government IT calamities; that has defied the international rule of law to take us into a disastrous war in Iraq; and that has now lost the personal details of 25 million people in the child benefit disks scandal. Big Brother is not so much watching you as trashing your life. Perhaps most worrying of all, there has been a change in culture and in attitude towards basic liberties, encouraged by the UK Government, which has cheapened our national life and coarsened our instinctive responses to injustice and arbitrariness of power.
I wonder whether I am the only person who is concerned about the fact that Lockheed Martin, the American arms company, is likely to carry out the census in this country. I think that there are issues in that to be considered against the background of this debate.
The high-water point and, in many ways, the litmus test of civil rights is the ID cards proposal. The point was made by Helen Eadie, who is obviously a card groupie, that many of us carry bank cards, library cards and so on for our own purposes. That is perfectly true; however, those are voluntary, individual and not broadly linked together. It is a whole different ball game when the state holds and requires records on a unified basis on all our doings—our health records, our tax records, where we go on holiday, our DNA records and our fingerprints.
When the Liberal Democrats were in government in Scotland, we made it clear that we did not want the ID cards scheme and that, if the UK Government insisted on introducing it, we did not want it to be linked to, or to be able to access, databases that would be held under the jurisdiction of the devolved Government or of devolved public agencies in Scotland. That remains the view that we ask Parliament to support today.
We have the advantage of much-changed public opinion. In 2003, when the Government first proposed the ID cards scheme, it was favoured by 78 per cent of people and opposed by only 15 per cent. Now, opinion is evenly divided—at least, it was prior to the lost disks problem. A 30 per cent swing in opinion sounds like one of the more spectacular Liberal Democrat by-election victories. It is certainly spectacular and significant.
I have some sympathy with the sentiments that Patrick Harvie expressed, and we have no particular objection to his amendment. He has a long record on these matters. We are all painfully aware that there are new threats to our society and our way of life, but we do not want to wake up one morning and discover that, in our urge to appear tough—to do something to fight criminals or terrorists—we have lost the ingredients that were special in our way of life: the freedom to go about our business unharassed by the authorities; the sanctity of our homes and private lives and the right to keep them private; and the rule of law that protects the innocent just as it punishes the guilty. We do not want, instead of those things, to have compulsory ID cards, a Government that wants to know everything about us, imprisonment without charge for the longest period in the western world, a growing tension with ethnic minority groups and young people, and an even more risk-averse culture.
Civil liberties are important to all parts of society. If my civil liberties are interfered with, it interferes with your civil liberties. That is why Parliament agreed to establish the Scottish Commission for Human Rights. The motion is highly apposite and I ask the Parliament to support it.