Overlooked - Liberty

48 Overlooked: Surveillance and personal privacy in modern Britain
proportion of the adults. Collectively these two databases will be relevant to every person in the
United Kingdom who is here for longer than a temporary visit 105 . They will create a birth to death
register of every person and allow for widespread access to this register. They are not the only two
mass informational databases in the UK but they are likely to be both the most significant and
controversial. The majority of this section will focus on the National Identity Register before a shorter
consideration of the Children Index.
The National Identity Register and Identity Card scheme
On 30 March 2006 the Identity Card Act 2006 (IDCA) received Royal Assent. The Government had
taken four years, published two bills, spent millions of pounds and used countless hours of Home
Office, Parliamentary and Committee time to pass legislation that will require the registration of
everyone resident in the UK for more than three months 106 .
At the heart of the Government’s proposals is the creation of a National Identity Register (NIR). It is
the NIR, rather than the ID card itself, that will have the most profound impact upon individual
privacy. Indeed the card is more a by-product of registration. Focus on the card rather than the
register has meant that public expressions of concern over the implications of introducing ID cards
have been muted. Any waning of public support for the scheme can be linked more to concerns
over cost and a growing awareness that the card will not provide the magic bullet solution to the
problems the Government has claimed for it than to concerns over privacy. Most people are aware
that many other countries have identity card schemes. Consequently there has been a presumption
that the UK’s proposals do not present any significant privacy concerns. There are two main reasons
why such an assessment would be misleading.
First, no other common law country in the world has an ID card scheme 107 . A common law country
is one where an individual’s actions are lawful unless positively prohibited by law and where the
courts are responsible for interpreting law. This contrasts with civil law countries (most European
countries) which have codified legal systems. This is not in itself an argument against identity cards.
However, it is worth noting that civil law countries tend to have far stronger codified privacy laws
than the UK, which act as a balance against state intrusion into individual privacy.
Second, it is wrong to presume that all compulsory identification schemes are similar. The scope of
the information sharing and dissemination powers contained in the Act goes far beyond those of
other countries. The Act is also riddled with reserved powers allowing the Secretary of State to extend
the scope of the scheme by Parliamentary order. This means that whatever the limitations imposed
in the Act concerning what information is contained on the NIR entry, who is entitled to access that
information and so on, these can increase dramatically over time. It is easy to see how such ‘function
creep’ could be tempting. Following the conviction of Ian Huntley for the murders of Holly Wells and
Jessica Chapman, the Bichard Inquiry was set up to investigate ways of ensuring that those who
were unsuitable were not able to work with children or vulnerable people 108 . One of Sir Michael
105
The Children Index will hold information on every person up to the age of 16 while the National Identity
Register is planned to hold details of everyone above 16 resident in the United Kingdom for more than 3
months.
106
Three months being the period the government has stated it intends to require registration.
107
With the possible exception of Cyprus, which the Home Office argues is a common law jurisdiction.
108
http://www.bichardinquiry.org.uk/