Surrey County Council says "No to ID"
Surrey County Council has approved a potentially very significant resolution proposed by Lib Dem County Councillor Stephen Cooksey (Dorking and the Holmwoods). It was agreed that, unless required to do so by law, Surrey will take no part in preparing for the government's ID Card scheme, it will refuse to participate in the national database and it will establish as Council policy that Identity Cards will not be required to obtain Surrey County Council benefits or services.
Cllr Cooksey's resolution was approved by a large majority, which included the Leader of the Council. The full text reads:
"This Council notes that the present Parliament has approved the Identity Card Act 2006.
This Council believes that:
- the use by government of the ID card and database will have a detrimental effect on the relationship between the individual and the state;
- the scheme will impose wholly disproportionate costs on the Council and other public bodies which will include both implementation and operational costs;
- this will have a damaging effect on all residents of Surrey.
This Council resolves, unless required to do so by law, to:
- take no part in any pilot scheme or feasibility work in relation to the National Identity Card Scheme;
- establish as Council policy that National Identity Cards will not be required in order to obtain Council benefits or services;
- refuse to participate in the national database."
Spelthorne, Guildford and Mole Valley are amongst the many other Councils who have already approved similar resolutions.
After reminding members of the fundamental rights of individual citizens which this legislation seeks to curtail, Stephen Cooksey moved on to the effect on local government both in financial terms, and more importantly, the way in which the relationship between the Council and the citizens it exists to serve, will be affected.
"Although the government claims that ID Cards will help fight terrorism, reduce illegal immigration and reduce benefit fraud - all laudable objectives in themselves - in each instance close analysis had revealed that the identity components of each of these areas are relatively insignificant and that those cheating the present system can be expected to work their way around the new one. Any government must do all that it can to deal with these issues, but to require the holding of at least 50 categories of personal information on each of the 60 million individuals who reside in this country is an unacceptable way of tackling these problems", he said.
"The legislation would change the whole relationship between government and people and significantly undermine the rights and expectations regarding individual privacy that are fundamental to our way of life. The National Identity Management System comprises the ID Card, the National Identity Register, individual checking and numbering of the population, storing a wide range of personal details to be disclosed and updated by each individual, the collection and checking of biometric information, a widespread scanner and computer terminal network connected to the central database, significant use of compulsory identity verification and large scale data sharing between organisations."
"There can be no reliable cost estimates of this scheme, but it is clear that compliance costs for public service providers including Councils will be huge - and no-one can seriously think that these costs would be subsidised by a Government with a record of imposing responsibilities on local authorities without providing the enabling funding. The cost will fall on the Council Tax payer, probably at the expense of service provision and on each individual resident through increased charges", Cllr Cooksey pointed out.
Speaking after the meeting Stephen Cooksey said: "The action approved today by Surrey County Council is a major step forward in the campaign being conducted by local authorities throughout the country to reduce the impact of this vastly expensive and totally unnecessary legislation on local residents. The decisions not to assist in implementing the legislation and not to require the production of ID cards in order for residents to obtain Council services firmly establishes the County's opposition to the scheme. I am pleased that it has received such widespread support and hope that sends a clear message to the government."
The voting was split 46 for and 20 against, with 2 abstentions. The Labour members asked for a named vote, so residents can check which way their local county councillor voted by referring to the Related Link below.